Joe K Post 8

Joe Kelly

Step 1:

Adorno's main problem with the homogenization of culture seems to be that it replaces individualism. It creates a formulaic approach to expression, and forces everyone to conform to it. He also uses the term "commodification" to express a trend he sees in culture. This is reminiscent of the Marxist idea that capitalism inspires the commodification of labor. According to Adorno, culture is no longer a humanistic expression, the ends of creative thought; it has instead become a tool, the means for capital gain. The result is the homogenization, in which distributors find the most successful formula to achieve the most success, and consequently, subject (and restrict) their viewers to that singular formula.

Step 2:

The culture industry does seem to have expanded at a great rate since Adorno, especially in the last twenty or so years. In terms of homogenization, this expansion seems to have had a positive effect. In all forms of media, it seems, more cultural alternatives have opened up for people to take an interest in. For instance, the advent of the internet has diversified the music industry, as a greater variety of artists find success, though not to extreme degrees like in the past, and more television networks mean a greater variety in programming to choose from. Much of what's available still suffers from a homogenized approach, since financial backers will not lend support to what they do not expect to succeed. However, this financial backing is, in many ways, not as necessary as it once was, because the internet has made word of mouth a far more valuable tool than it has every been before.

Step 3:

The difference Adorno saw between the formulaic culture industry and the freely and imaginatively created arts is simply the freedom found in creating them. Instead of being free to create whatever they want, these artists are held to standards that executives have found maximize profits. This clearly contributes to the homogenization of culture that Adorno had despised.

An example of an artist who is bound by the culture industry would be Plies, pictured below on the cover of his album, The Real Testament.

WARNING: Extreme sarcasm ahead.

Plies, though a talented musician in his own right, has been reduced to following the same old formula of standard beats and offensive lyrics. Though a master of poetry, he must resort to lyrics such as "I taught her how to talk to me while she take pipe/And opened her up and showed her what a real nigga like" and "I know in the panty she foamin'/ I'm locked eyes on that monkey." While these clever turns of phrase certainly would have carried a level of cultural profundity several years ago, they've been cheapened by the recent exploitation of sexual themes for monetary gain. There's no telling what kind of art Plies would produce if he were left to his own devices, rather than a mere pawn of the music industry. (Alright, I'm done now.)

In contrast, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon was created on artistic creativity alone. It was truly a unique creation that had a profound effect on music for decades to come. Instead of maintaining homogeneity, as Plies so begrudgingly does (alright, I'm really done now, I promise), they broke the mold.