> I've also read Kant, Hegel and Marx on aesthetics. This is one reason I
> find "gossip" inadequate -
Much of what Proust records, in terms of conversations, is nothing but gossip, the empty chatter of the privileged whiling away their boredom. Jameson's point, which he states beautifully, is that this boredom and privilege, otherwise utterly repugnant for us, acquires a genuine use-value, has an authentically utopian function, as the anticipation of a society which genuinely fulfilled the needs of its members (Proust turns nothing into something). All this is implicit in the passages of Marx you've quoted, but isn't anything like a full-fledged theory of aesthetics. Marx's insight that:
> The forming of the five senses is a labour of the entire history of the
> world down to the present.
remained an insight, a flash of Marxisms to come, because Marx concentrated on a theory of capital, not aesthetics. You seem to be suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong) that Marx solved all the problems and that we don't need to bother with aesthetics; if not, then you're going to have to show me exactly why Jameson is wrong, i.e. disprove his thesis, that the consumer culture is an integral part of the logic of late capitalism, requiring critique and resistance.
-- Dennis