Jenn Post 8

Jenn Shea
1)
The idea of the freedom of an artist to express whatever he desires and the idea of the freedom of the spectator to find within art whatever he or she pleases has long been part of the ideology of a democratic society. However, as addressed by Adorno in “How to Look at Television,” “Although the authors’ motivations certainly enter the artifact, they are by no means so all-determining as is often assumed…in most cases, he has to follow the objective requirements of his product much more than his own urges of expression when he translates his primary conception into artistic reality” (226). Art thus becomes more of a rigid and standardized commodity used to turn a profit through manipulating the “free” interpretation and speculation of viewers. In turn, this pre-determined set of guidelines established by the demands of society concerning the presentation, content, and other aspects of the art impacts the viewer by manipulating and streamlining what he or she views and additionally how he or she reacts. As Adorno notes, “commercial production of cultural goods has become streamlined, and the impact of popular culture upon the individual has concomitantly increased” (“Television” 215). Individuals, then, become less of a spectator and more of a source of industry and revenue for society as they are drawn into the pre-fabricated forms of art including but not limited to television, film, and advertisement. In such a contradictory society in which individual expression is outwardly valued by inwardly suppressed by a pre-determined mould, Adorno addresses the dangers such increasing streamlining has on spectators as well as the resulting downfall of aestheticism and free expression.

In forcing culture into a defined and rigid set of standards, artistic freedom suffers, and the freedom of the viewer is also compromised in several ways. First, the mass media or culture industry, as Adorno calls it, assumes a psychological control over the viewer and seems to impose a totalitarian ideology by dictating the standards by which a piece of art must be produced, presented, and viewed. Because of this this, Adorno observes how viewers have little room to determine their own reactions: “The repetitiveness, the selfsameness, and the ubiquity of modern mass culture tend to make for automatized reactions and to weaken the forces of individual resistance” (216). Specifically speaking of television, Adorno also addresses the idea of an impassive audience vulnerable to believing whatever is presented. In doing so, he compares this with the idea of totalitarianism manipulating the individual into following the order of the state, no questions asked: “This falls in line with the suspicion widely shared, though hard to corroborate by exact data, that the majority of television shows today aim at producing or at least reproducing the very smugness, intellectual passivity, and gullibility that seem to fit in with totalitarian creeds even if the explicit surface message of the shows may be antitotalitarian” (222). In addition, Adorno speaks of the role of subliminal messages acting upon a consumer much like a totalitarian leader would use in propaganda in order to maintain order and desired behavior from individuals. He states that, “…certain political and social trends of our time, particularly those of a totalitarian nature, feed to a considerable extent on irrational and frequently unconscious motivations” (222). By taking advantage of the supposed effectiveness of tapping into the unconscious (which seems largely impossible, as we discussed in our last critical reflection), Adorno implies that culture industry uses (or more appropriately abuses) the power of the media to brainwash viewers into reacting uniformly and as expected.

In relation to this power that leads to the submissiveness of the viewer, another danger is the conformity of the individual in believing or experiencing a piece of art as everyone else does because the way in which the art was produced intended to evoke such a common and predetermined reaction, regardless of the will of the viewer to develop his or her own reaction. As the artist is forced to produce his or her work according to restrictions such as time, space, genre, target audience, etc, the viewer is forced to react in the expected way consistent with social norms. As Adorno notes, “The ideals of conformity and conventionalism were inherent in popular novels from the very beginning. Now, however, these ideals have been translated into rather clear-cut prescriptions of what to do and what not to do. The outcome of conflicts is pre-established, and all conflicts are mere sham. Society is always the winner, and the individual is only a puppet manipulated through social rules” (220). In addition, Adorno also addresses the direct manipulation and censorship of art by executives in terms of whether or not the work is consistent with the standards of the status quo: “In addition there is the agreement – or at least the determination – of all executive authorities not to produce or sanction anything that in any way differs from their own rules, their own ideas about consumers, or above all themselves” (Culture Industry 2).

Because of both the power of the media executives of the culture industry and the ways in which artists and viewers are forced to conform to the common standards of creating and viewing, an audience becomes a robot-like group incapable of an autonomous appreciation for art. These individuals also become desensitized and lethargic toward reality as they are repeatedly sold a standardized version of reality through various forms of media. Adorno notes, “Mass culture, if not sophisticated, must at least be up-to-date—that is to say, ‘realistic,’ or posing as realistic—in order to meet the expectations of a supposedly disillusioned, alert, and hard-boiled audience” (218). Because of the experience of a commodity-form of reality through forms of media, people lose sight of their own reality: “Thus, people may not only lose true insight into reality, but ultimately their very capacity for life experience may be dulled by the constant wearing of blue and pink spectacles” (Adorno 230).


2)
The mass media has continued to grow, and as a result, the culture industry has further expanded. Each year there are numerous television programs, movies, etc, and such additions have provided furhter venues that the culture industry can use to turn a profit from the production and viewer commodities. Through the continuation of movies being produced with different story lines but the same time restrictions, categorizations into genres, and structured format of beginning, middle, and end and with television shows abiding by similar restrictions and continually falling into the categories of sit-coms, soap operas, reality shows, etc, the culture industry maintains its power of standardizing what the audience is exposed to. In keeping with the tradition of the creation and presentation of various forms of media, the viewer is limited in how he or she may react, as the individual is repeatedly exposed to the essentially the same stream-lined material for which standard reactions have already been established. As Adorno notes, “Not only are the hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariablehe types, but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable. The short interval sequence which was effective in a hit song, the hero’s momentary fall from grace (which he accepts as good sport), the rough treatment which the beloved gets from the male star, the latter’s rugged defiance of the spoilt heiress, are, like all the other details, ready-made clichés to be slotted in anywhere; they never do anything more than fulfil the purpose allotted them in the overall plan. Their whole raison d’être is to confirm it by being its constituent parts” (4). In addition, more and more individuals are tuning in to television shows, radio stations, and movies as more and more are produced and are made more readily available through the expansion of the internet (youtube, online news and television stations), music technology (iTunes, iPod), and other forms of technology that facilitate mass production and broadcasting. For this reason, Adorno notes that neither the industry nor the individual could exist without the other: “The masses are not the measure but the ideology of the culture industry, even though the culture industry itself could scarcely exist without adapting to the masses” (Reconsidered).

3)
In regard to the difference between culture industry products and imaginatively created pieces of art, Adorno compared it to the difference between conformity and accessibility versus autonomy and authenticity, respectively. He saw culture industry products as standardized forms mass-produced and made easily accessible to a public whose reactions would be similarly standardized and mainstream. The products had to be more literal and more reflective of reality, which, as he noted in “The Culture Industry”, reduced the use of the imagination by the audience: “Real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies. The sound film, far surpassing the theatre of illusion, leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience, who is unable to respond within the structure of the film, yet deviate from its precise detail without losing the thread of the story; hence the film forces its victims to equate it directly with reality” (4). An example of this type of art can be seen with the Statue of Liberty. This was once recognized as a very unique and symbolic piece of art that had very significant meaning in the history of the United States. Although it continues to represents the same ideals of freedom and opportunity as it did when given as a gift from France, it has now been reproduced into almost any type of souvenir one could imagine including key chains, hats, and can be found displayed on apparel, bags, and posters, and has been replicated in miniature figurine form. Now it is possible for any individual to have some form of this piece of art. Specifically in regard to Adorno’s discussion about film and television, one can see the culture industry within any category of movie such as a romantic comedy. In any romantic comedy, the director and writer of a movie must consider time limit, incorporation of an equal balance of romance and witty comedy, incorporation of actors that will charm both sexes, a soundtrack that will remind the audience of the movie even after viewing, and many other characteristics that have been set as standards for which a film creator must consider while making a movie. The films must also in some way adapt a sense of reality.

Contrastingly, Adorno saw freely created art as having a unique quality in which the artist fell under no constraints of expression and in which a viewer was equally as free to interpret and perceive the art form as he or she pleased. He recognized this more genuine art as becoming less recognized and less frequently appreciated, while the more readily accessible mass-produced films and television and radio shows became more and more popular to the commodity-driven consumer. He noted, “Even today the culture industry dresses works of art like political slogans and forces them upon a resistant public at reduced prices; they are as accessible for public enjoyment as a park. But the disappearance of their genuine commodity character does not mean that they have been abolished in the life of a free society, but that the last defence against their reduction to culture goods has fallen” (14). An example of this would be most art found in museums that has not been reproduced for the masses from the pressures of the culture industry to turn a profit. For example, “Abstract Landscape” by Helen Frankenthaler from 1951 during the abstract expressionist movement demonstrates a free form of expression in which the artist was able to create freely without restraints from the culture industry about appealing to an audience and becoming a commodity and in which the viewer was also free to interpret the painting regardless of the standards of viewing set out by the industry. There is no direction of what to look for and no standards to go by; the freedom is given to the viewer to determine meaning. The viewer is also not used as a tool to perpetuate the culture industry, and the painting itself has intrinsic value and attracts people aesthetically rather than for the purpose of gaining influence and money.


In general, Adorno insists that individuals are being taken over by dominant influence of the culture industry. By adhering to the standards by which a piece of art must be created in order to cater to an audience, artists are allowing this power of the culture industry to perpetuate and increase, especially with more forms and venues for media being introduced. As Adorno noted, once the culture industry takes hold of a piece of art, “There is nothing left for the consumer to classify. Producers have done it for him. Art for the masses has destroyed the dream but still conforms to the tenets of that dreaming idealism which critical idealism baulked at” (4).