The Art Market Demystified in Four Short Documentaries

Spend an hour or two at MoMA, Tate Mod­ern, or some oth­er world class muse­um and inevitably you’’ll over­hear some vari­a­tion of “my sev­en-year-old could paint that.”

May­haps, Madam, but how much would it fetch at auc­tion?

As a new doc­u­men­tary series, the Art Mar­ket (in Four Parts), makes clear, the mon­e­tary val­ue of art is tricky to assign.

There are excep­tions, of course, such as in the irre­sistible Picas­so anec­dote cit­ed in the trail­er, above.

Usu­al­ly how­ev­er, even the experts must resort to an edu­cat­ed guess, based on a num­ber of fac­tors, none of which can tell the whole sto­ry.

As jour­nal­ist and for­mer direc­tor of New York’s White Columns gallery, Josh Baer, points out in the series’ first episode below, even art mar­ket indices are an unre­li­able tool for assess­ing worth. A por­trait of actress Eliz­a­beth Tay­lor by Andy Warhol failed to attract a sin­gle bid at auc­tion, though art­net Price Data­base report­ed sales of between $27 mil­lion and $31.5 mil­lion for oth­er “Liz” paint­ings by the same artist.

I’d have thought a sig­na­ture as famous as Warhol’s would con­fer the same sort of ins­ta-worth Picas­so claimed his John Han­cock did.

The unpre­dictabil­i­ty of final sales fig­ures has led auc­tion hous­es to issue guar­an­tees in return for a split of the prof­its, a prac­tice Sotheby’s North and South Amer­i­ca chair­man, Lisa Den­ni­son, likens to an insur­ance pol­i­cy for the sell­er.

With the excep­tion of the ill-fat­ed Warhol’s great big goose egg, the num­bers bat­ted around by the series’ influ­en­tial talk­ing heads are pret­ty stag­ger­ing. Snap­py edit­ing also lends a sense of art world glam­our, though gal­lerist Michele Mac­carone betrays a cer­tain weari­ness that may come clos­er to the true ener­gy at the epi­cen­ter of the scene.

As for me, I couldn’t help think­ing back to my days as a recep­tion­ist in a com­mer­cial gallery on Chicago’s tourist friend­ly Mag­nif­i­cent Mile. I was con­temp­tu­ous of most of the stuff on our walls, which ran heav­i­ly to pas­tel gar­den par­ties and har­le­quins posed in front of rec­og­niz­able land­marks. One day, a cou­ple who’d wan­dered in on impulse dropped a ridicu­lous sum on a florid beach scene, com­plete with shim­mer­ing rain­bows. Rich they may have been, but their utter lack of taste was appalling, at least until the wife excit­ed­ly con­fid­ed that the paint­ing’s set­ting remind­ed them of their long ago Hawai­ian hon­ey­moon. That clar­i­fied a lot for me as to art’s true val­ue. I hope that the cou­ple is still alive and enjoy­ing the most for their money’s worth, every sin­gle day.

The Art Market’s oth­er three parts, “Gal­leries,” “Patrons,” and “Art Fairs,” will be released week­ly through mid-June. And we’ll try to add them to this post, as they roll out.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Warhol: The Bell­wether of the Art Mar­ket

Braque in Bulk: Cost­co Gets Back into the Fine Art Mar­ket

1933 Arti­cle on Fri­da Kahlo: “Wife of the Mas­ter Mur­al Painter Glee­ful­ly Dab­bles in Works of Art”

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine. She wrote about her brief stint as a gallery recep­tion­ist in her third book, Job Hop­per: The Check­ered Career of a Down-Mar­ket Dilet­tante. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

Stephen Hawking Wonders Whether Capitalism or Artificial Intelligence Will Doom the Human Race

hawking capitalism future

Cre­ative Com­mons image via NASA

It should­n’t be espe­cial­ly con­tro­ver­sial to point out that we live in a piv­otal time in human history—that the actions we col­lec­tive­ly take (or that plu­to­crats and tech­nocrats take) will deter­mine the future of the human species—or whether we even have a future in the com­ing cen­turies. The threats posed by cli­mate change and war are exac­er­bat­ed and accel­er­at­ed by rapid­ly wors­en­ing eco­nom­ic inequal­i­ty. Expo­nen­tial advances in tech­nol­o­gy threat­en to eclipse our abil­i­ty to con­trol machines rather than be con­trolled, or stamped out, by them.

It’s also the case that our most well-regard­ed sci­en­tists and tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tors have not remained silent in the face of these crises. Physi­cist Stephen Hawk­ing has issued some dire warn­ings late­ly when it comes to human­i­ty’s future. Sev­er­al years ago, he pre­dict­ed that “our only chance of long term sur­vival” may be to “spread out into space,” a la Inter­stel­lar. In addi­tion to the wors­en­ing cli­mate cri­sis, the rise of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence con­cerns Hawk­ing. Along with Bill Gates and Elon Musk, he has warned of what futur­ist Ray Kurzweil has called “the sin­gu­lar­i­ty,” the point at which machine intel­li­gence sur­pass­es our own.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Where Kurzweil has seen this event through an opti­mistic, New Age lens, Hawk­ing’s view seems more in line with dystopi­an sci-fi visions of robot apoc­a­lypse. “Suc­cess in AI would be the biggest event in human his­to­ry,” he wrote in The Inde­pen­dent last year, “Unfor­tu­nate­ly it might also be the last.” Giv­en the design of autonomous weapons sys­tems and, as he told the BBC, the fact that “Humans, who are lim­it­ed by slow bio­log­i­cal evo­lu­tion, could­n’t com­pete and would be super­seded,” the prospect looks chill­ing, but it isn’t inevitable.

Our tech isn’t active­ly out to get us. “The real risk with AI isn’t mal­ice but com­pe­tence,” Hawk­ing clar­i­fied, in a fas­ci­nat­ing Red­dit “Ask Me Any­thing” ses­sion last month. Due to the physi­cist’s phys­i­cal lim­i­ta­tions, read­ers post­ed ques­tions and vot­ed on their favorites. From these, Hawk­ing elect­ed the “ones he feels he can give answers to.” In response to a top-rat­ed ques­tion about the so-called “Ter­mi­na­tor Con­ver­sa­tion,” he wrote, “A super­in­tel­li­gent AI will be extreme­ly good at accom­plish­ing its goals, and if those goals aren’t aligned with ours, we’re in trou­ble.”

This prob­lem of mis­aligned goals is not of course lim­it­ed to our rela­tion­ship with machines. Our pre­car­i­ous eco­nom­ic rela­tion­ships with each oth­er pose a sep­a­rate threat, espe­cial­ly in the face of mas­sive job loss due to future automa­tion. We’d like to imag­ine a future where tech­nol­o­gy frees us of toil and want, the kind of soci­ety Buck­min­ster Fuller sought to cre­ate. But the truth is that wealth and income inequal­i­ty, at their high­est lev­els in the U.S. since at least the Gild­ed Age, may deter­mine a very dif­fer­ent path—one we might think of in terms of “The Ely­si­um Con­ver­sa­tion.” Asked in the same AMA Red­dit ses­sion, “Do you fore­see a world where peo­ple work less because so much work is auto­mat­ed? Do you think peo­ple will always either find work or man­u­fac­ture more work to be done?,” Hawk­ing elab­o­rat­ed,

If machines pro­duce every­thing we need, the out­come will depend on how things are dis­trib­uted. Every­one can enjoy a life of lux­u­ri­ous leisure if the machine-pro­duced wealth is shared, or most peo­ple can end up mis­er­ably poor if the machine-own­ers suc­cess­ful­ly lob­by against wealth redis­tri­b­u­tion. So far, the trend seems to be toward the sec­ond option, with tech­nol­o­gy dri­ving ever-increas­ing inequal­i­ty.

For decades after the Cold War, cap­i­tal­ism had the sta­tus of an unques­tion­ably sacred doctrine—the end of his­to­ry and the best of all pos­si­ble worlds. Now, not only has Hawk­ing iden­ti­fied its excess­es as dri­vers of human decline, but so have oth­er decid­ed­ly non-Marx­ist fig­ures like Bill Gates, who in a recent Atlantic inter­view described the pri­vate sec­tor as “in gen­er­al inept” and unable to address the cli­mate cri­sis because of its focus on short-term gains and max­i­mal prof­its. “There’s no for­tune to be made,” he said, from deal­ing with some of the biggest threats to our sur­vival. But if we don’t deal with them, the loss­es are incal­cu­la­ble.

via Huff Po

Relat­ed Con­tent:

187 Big Thinkers Answer the Ques­tion: What Do You Think About Machines That Think?

Bertrand Rus­sell & Buck­min­ster Fuller on Why We Should Work Less, and Live & Learn More

Sev­en Ques­tions for Stephen Hawk­ing: What Would He Ask Albert Ein­stein & More

Stephen Hawk­ing: Aban­don Earth Or Face Extinc­tion

Noam Chom­sky Explains Where Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence Went Wrong

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

MIT’s Introduction to Poker Theory: A Free Online Course

Taught by Kevin Desmond, a grad­u­ate stu­dent in MIT’s Sloan School of Man­age­ment, Pok­er The­o­ry and Ana­lyt­ics intro­duces “stu­dents to pok­er strat­e­gy, psy­chol­o­gy, and deci­sion-mak­ing in eleven lec­tures.” Along with giv­ing stu­dents the chance to play end­less rounds of pok­er, the class–according to MIT News–fea­tured guest speak­ers  “Bill Chen, a pro­fes­sion­al play­er best known for his appear­ances on the Game Show Network’s High Stakes Pok­er tele­vi­sion show, Matt Hawrilenko, a Prince­ton grad­u­ate who won more than $1 mil­lion at the World Series of Pok­er in 2009, and Aaron Brown, chief risk man­ag­er at AQR Cap­i­tal Man­age­ment.” And it cul­mi­nat­ed with a live tour­na­ment.

You can access all of the lec­tures for the Pok­er The­o­ry and Ana­lyt­ics course on YouTube, iTunes or Archive.org. (You can watch the com­plete playlist of lec­tures above.) And if you click here, you can get the syl­labuslec­tures notes, assign­ments, pok­er soft­ware, and more.

Pok­er The­o­ry and Ana­lyt­ics  will be added to our ever-grow­ing col­lec­tion, 1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties, in both the Busi­ness and Eco­nom­ics sec­tions.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Peter Thiel’s Stan­ford Course on Star­tups: Read the Lec­ture Notes Free Online

150 Free Online Busi­ness Cours­es

MIT Teach­es You How to Speak Ital­ian & Cook Ital­ian Food All at Once (Free Online Course)

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

Animated Introductions to Three Sociologists: Durkheim, Weber & Adorno

Is soci­ol­o­gy an art or a sci­ence? Is it phi­los­o­phy? Social psy­chol­o­gy? Eco­nom­ics and polit­i­cal the­o­ry? Sur­vey­ing the great soci­ol­o­gists since the mid-19th cen­tu­ry, one would have to answer “yes” to all of these ques­tions. Soci­ol­o­gists like Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Theodor Adorno con­duct­ed seri­ous schol­ar­ly and social-sci­en­tif­ic analy­ses, and wrote high­ly spec­u­la­tive the­o­ry. Though it may seem like we’re all soci­ol­o­gists now, mak­ing crit­i­cal judg­ments about large groups of peo­ple, the soci­ol­o­gists who cre­at­ed and car­ried on the dis­ci­pline gen­er­al­ly did so with sound evi­dence and well-rea­soned argu­ment. Unlike so much cur­rent knee-jerk com­men­tary, even when they’re wrong they’re still well worth read­ing.

Hav­ing already sur­veyed Marx in his series on Euro-Amer­i­can polit­i­cal philoso­phers, School of Life founder Alain de Bot­ton now tack­les the oth­er three illus­tri­ous names on the list above, start­ing with Durkheim at the top, then Weber above, and Adorno below. The first two fig­ures were con­tem­po­raries of Marx, the third a lat­er inter­preter. Like that beard­ed Ger­man scourge of cap­i­tal­ism, these three—in more mea­sured or pes­simistic ways—levied cri­tiques against the dom­i­nant eco­nom­ic sys­tem. Durkheim took on the prob­lem of sui­cide, Weber the anx­ious reli­gious under­pin­nings of cap­i­tal­ist ide­ol­o­gy, and Adorno the con­sumer cul­ture of instant grat­i­fi­ca­tion.

That’s so far, at least, as de Bot­ton’s very cur­so­ry intro­duc­tions get us. As with his oth­er series, this one more or less ropes the thinkers rep­re­sent­ed here into the School of Life’s pro­gram of pro­mot­ing a very par­tic­u­lar, mid­dle class view of hap­pi­ness. And, as with the oth­er series, the thinkers sur­veyed here all seem to more or less agree with de Bot­ton’s own views. Per­haps oth­ers who most cer­tain­ly could have been includ­ed, like W.E.B. Dubois, Jane Addams, or Han­nah Arendt, would offer some very dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives.

De Bot­ton again makes his points with pithy gen­er­al­iza­tions, num­bered lists, and quirky, cut-out ani­ma­tions, breezi­ly reduc­ing life­times of work to a few obser­va­tions and moral lessons. I doubt Adorno would approach these less-than-rig­or­ous meth­ods char­i­ta­bly, but those new to the field of soci­ol­o­gy or the work of its prac­ti­tion­ers will find here some tan­ta­liz­ing ideas that will hope­ful­ly inspire them to dig deep­er, and to per­haps improve their own soci­o­log­i­cal diag­noses.

Note: For those inter­est­ed, Yale has a free open course on Soci­ol­o­gy called “Foun­da­tions of Mod­ern Social The­o­ry,” which cov­ers most of the fig­ures list­ed above. You can always find it in our col­lec­tion, 1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

6 Polit­i­cal The­o­rists Intro­duced in Ani­mat­ed “School of Life” Videos: Marx, Smith, Rawls & More

Niet­zsche, Wittgen­stein & Sartre Explained with Mon­ty Python-Style Ani­ma­tions by The School of Life

Theodor Adorno’s Rad­i­cal Cri­tique of Joan Baez and the Music of the Viet­nam War Protest Move­ment

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

A Short Animated History of Daylight Saving Time, Narrated by Stephen Fry

Sev­er­al weeks back, we con­tem­plat­ed how, in the 1650s, the eco­nom­ic his­to­ry of the West changed irrev­o­ca­bly when Chris­ti­aan Huy­gens invent­ed the pen­du­lum clock  — a time­piece that enabled us to mea­sure time in accu­rate, uni­form ways, mak­ing us atten­tive to the pas­sage of time and focus on things like pro­duc­tiv­i­ty and per­for­mance. Watch “A Briefer His­to­ry of Time” to get more on that.

By the 18th cen­tu­ry, Ben Franklin, Amer­i­ca’s great Enlight­en­ment fig­ure, thought of anoth­er way to dis­ci­pline time and squeeze more pro­duc­tiv­i­ty out of us. While an envoy in France, Franklin sug­gest­ed that Parisians save mon­ey on can­dles by get­ting out of bed ear­li­er and prof­it from the morn­ing sun­light. Not a sur­pris­ing sug­ges­tion from the man who famous­ly said: “Ear­ly to bed, and ear­ly to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.” In the video above, Stephen Fry tells you the rest of the Day­light Sav­ing sto­ry. And just a reminder, Europe springs its time for­ward tonight.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How Clocks Changed Human­i­ty For­ev­er, Mak­ing Us Mas­ters and Slaves of Time

Stephen Fry Explains Human­ism in 4 Ani­mat­ed Videos: Hap­pi­ness, Truth and the Mean­ing of Life & Death

Stephen Fry Explains the Rules of Crick­et in 10 Ani­mat­ed Videos

Robert Reich Debunks Three Economic Myths by Drawing Cartoons

Robert Reich met Bill Clin­ton when they were both Rhodes Schol­ars dur­ing the 1960s. In the 70s, Reich attend­ed Yale Law School with Hill and Bill. And then, decades lat­er, he served in the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion as Sec­re­tary of Labor. Some­where along the line, the polit­i­cal econ­o­mist picked up some draw­ing skills (putting him in good com­pa­ny with Win­ston Churchill and George Bush) that work nice­ly in our age of white­board ani­mat­ed videos. Now a pro­fes­sor at UC Berke­ley, Reich visu­al­ly debunks three eco­nom­ic mytholo­gies in two min­utes. This clip fol­lows a rapid­fire 2012 video, again fea­tur­ing his car­toon­ing skills, called The Truth About the Econ­o­my.

ht @sheerly

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Online Eco­nom­ics Cours­es

The His­to­ry of Eco­nom­ics & Eco­nom­ic The­o­ry Explained with Comics, Start­ing with Adam Smith

60-Sec­ond Adven­tures in Eco­nom­ics: An Ani­mat­ed Intro to The Invis­i­ble Hand and Oth­er Eco­nom­ic Ideas

Read­ing Marx’s Cap­i­tal with David Har­vey (Free Course)

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 11 ) |

Monopoly: How the Original Game Was Made to Condemn Monopolies & the Abuses of Capitalism

The great cap­i­tal­ist game of Monop­oly was first mar­ket­ed by Park­er Broth­ers back in Feb­ru­ary 1935, right in the mid­dle of the Great Depres­sion. Even dur­ing hard times, Amer­i­cans could still imag­ine amass­ing a for­tune and secur­ing a monop­oly on the real estate mar­ket. When it comes to mak­ing mon­ey, Amer­i­cans nev­er run out of opti­mism and hope.

Monop­oly did­n’t real­ly begin, how­ev­er, in 1935. And if you trace back the ori­gins of the game, you’ll encounter an iron­ic, curi­ous tale. The sto­ry goes like this: Eliz­a­beth (Lizzie) J. Magie Phillips (1866–1948), a dis­ci­ple of the pro­gres­sive era econ­o­mist Hen­ry George, cre­at­ed the pro­to­type for Monop­oly in 1903. And she did so with the goal of illus­trat­ing the prob­lems asso­ci­at­ed with con­cen­trat­ing land in pri­vate monop­o­lies.

As Mary Pilon, the author of the new book The Monop­o­lists: Obses­sion, Fury, and the Scan­dal Behind the World’s Favorite Board Game, recent­ly explained in The New York Times, the orig­i­nal game — The Landlord’s Game — came with two sets of rules: “an anti-monop­o­list set in which all were reward­ed when wealth was cre­at­ed, and a monop­o­list set in which the goal was to cre­ate monop­o­lies and crush oppo­nents.” Phillips’ approach, Pilon adds, “was a teach­ing tool meant to demon­strate that the first set of rules was moral­ly supe­ri­or.” In oth­er words, the orig­i­nal game of Monop­oly was cre­at­ed as a cri­tique of monop­o­lies — some­thing the trust- and monop­oly-bust­ing pres­i­dent, Theodore Roo­sevelt, could relate to.

Patent­ed in 1904 and self-pub­lished in 1906, The Land­lord’s Game fea­tured “play mon­ey and deeds and prop­er­ties that could be bought and sold. Play­ers bor­rowed mon­ey, either from the bank or from each oth­er, and they had to pay tax­es,” Pilon writes in her new book.

The Landlord’s Game also had the look & feel of the game the Park­er Broth­ers would even­tu­al­ly bas­tardize and make famous. Above, you can see an image from the patent Philips filed in 1904 (top), and anoth­er image from the mar­ket­ed game.

Magie Philips nev­er got cred­it or resid­u­als from the Park­er Broth­ers’ game. Instead, a fel­low named Charles Dar­row came along and draft­ed his own ver­sion of the game, tweaked the design, called it Monop­oly (see the ear­li­est ver­sion here), slapped a copy­right on the pack­ag­ing with his name, and then sold the game to Park­er Broth­ers for a report­ed $7,000, plus resid­u­als. He even­tu­al­ly made mil­lions.

As they like to say in the US, it’s just busi­ness.

For more on the ori­gins of Monop­oly, read Mary Pilon’s piece in The Times.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hen­ry Rollins: Edu­ca­tion is the Cure to “Dis­as­ter Cap­i­tal­ism”

Free Online Eco­nom­ics Cours­es

Andrei Tarkovsky’s Mas­ter­piece Stalk­er Gets Adapt­ed into a Video Game

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

David Harvey’s Course on Marx’s Capital: Volumes 1 & 2 Now Available Free Online

For many peo­ple, the argu­ments and analy­sis of Karl Marx’s three-vol­ume Das Kap­i­tal (or Cap­i­tal: A Cri­tique of Polit­i­cal Econ­o­my) are as rel­e­vant as ever. For many oth­ers, the work is a his­tor­i­cal curios­i­ty, dat­ed rel­ic, or worse. Before form­ing an opin­ion either way, it’s prob­a­bly best to read the thing—or as much of the huge set of tomes as you can man­age. (Vol. 1, Vol. 2. and Vol. 3.) Few thinkers have been as fre­quent­ly mis­quot­ed or mis­un­der­stood, even, or espe­cial­ly, by their own adher­ents. And as with any dense philo­soph­i­cal text, when embark­ing on a study of Marx, it’s best to have a guide. One could hard­ly do bet­ter than David Har­vey, Dis­tin­guished Pro­fes­sor of Anthro­pol­o­gy and Geog­ra­phy at the City Uni­ver­si­ty of New York’s Grad­u­ate Cen­ter.

Harvey’s work as a geo­g­ra­ph­er focus­es on cities, the increas­ing­ly pre­dom­i­nant mode of human habi­ta­tion, and he is the author of the high­ly pop­u­lar, two-vol­ume Com­pan­ion to Marx’s Cap­i­tal. The books grow out of lec­tures Har­vey has deliv­ered in a pop­u­lar course at the City Uni­ver­si­ty. They’re very read­able (check them out here and here), but you don’t have to read them—or attend CUNY—to hear Har­vey him­self deliv­er the goods. We’ve pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured his Cap­i­tal: Vol­ume 1 lec­tures (at top, pre­ced­ed by an inter­view with a col­league). Now Har­vey has made his lec­tures on Cap­i­tal, Vol­ume II and some of Vol­ume III avail­able. Watch all twelve class­es above or view them indi­vid­u­al­ly here. As Har­vey admits in an inter­view before the first lec­ture, the neglect­ed sec­ond vol­ume of Marx’s mas­ter­work is “a very dif­fi­cult vol­ume to get through,” due to its style, struc­ture, and sub­ject mat­ter. With Harvey’s patient, enthu­si­as­tic guid­ance, it’s worth the trou­ble.

You can view the lec­tures from Har­vey’s course on mul­ti­ple plat­forms. Below we pro­vide an easy-to-access list. You can also see all lec­tures on David Har­vey’s web­site, where you can also down­load class notes.

Youtube

Vol­ume 1

Vol­ume 2

iTunes 

Vol­ume 1 Audio

Vol­ume 1 Video

Vol­ume 2 Audio

Vol­ume 2 Video

Vimeo

Vol­ume 1 and 2 — All Videos

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Read Marx’s Cap­i­tal with David Har­vey, and Then Help Trans­late His Free Course Into 36 Lan­guages

Piketty’s Cap­i­tal in a Nut­shell

The Karl Marx Cred­it Card – When You’re Short of Kap­i­tal

Free Online Eco­nom­ics Cours­es

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast