The claim that the culture industry has merely continued and expanded is proven over and over in our daily lives. Evidence of expansion is seen in the far reach of the mass media, the different forms it takes. Evidence of continuation is seen in the fact that although there are a myriad of different forms, they all resemble each other. Adorno makes this point in How to Look at Television when he says "these forms show an amazing parallelism, even when they appear to have little in common on the surface (such as jazz and a detective novel)." (p 215) In modern day media, we see the theme reoccurring, the commercials that interrupt our programs tend to resemble our programs. Although a commercial is generally 30 seconds to a minute long, most have plot lines, some form of suspension (even if only for an instant) and a generally predictable ending, just like the program it interrupts. This is exactly what Adorno is talking about when he mentions the homogenization of culture, everything looks and sounds the same. This sameness does not only take place within television (commercials and programs) it can be seen across media. A second example shows how movies, television programs, and popular songs have similar themes, story lines, and conclusions. The message is the same over and over, just delivered by different voices. Sometimes the voice is even the same (Beyonce is both a singer and actress). Adorno called this "The alliance of word, image, and music" in The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. This example shows the continuation of the culture industry in familiar forms and its expansion to all forms of media.
Another piece of evidence that demonstrates the growth of the culture industry is concept of globalization. Our brainwashed-into-uniformity culture industry is taking its influence overseas by virtue of satellites, and the Internet. Through web cams, search engines, personal pages, online advertisement, and so on, our culture industry has expanded farther than possibly even Adorno could have imagined. Now, the "people at the top" can treat not only Americans as commodities, they can treat the Europeans, and the Asians, the South Americans and the Africans that way too. From sea to shining sea no longer defines the boundaries of our culture industry.
Step 3
There is absolutely no doubt that Adorno saw a "clear cut" difference between "freely and imaginatively created works of art" and "formulaic culture industry products." In How to Look at Television Adorno says that art does not have "some unmistakable 'message'" the way popular culture does. While he admits that both have layers, he says that the layers of art "are much more thoroughly fused." (p 221) Truly autonomous art does not conform to accepted standards as culture industry products must. The powerpoint lists the number of people involved in the creation of the work as criteria in determining whether or not it is art or product. According tot he powerpoint, the more people involved, the more likely it is to be product as opposed to art. This reflects Adorno's feeling that originality in art comes from "inwardness." One who is focusing on introspection is not likely to take part in a huge collaborative effort to drain any personality from a piece. (p 217) " It is alleged that because millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods. " (The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception) Real art is not processed, it is organic.
The first image is a piece of the Sistine Chapel, painted by Michealangelo. This would be considered freely creative, autonomous art, by any standards, Adorno's included. The painting took immense skill to create and it is a well known fact that Michealangelo insisted on suffering to get the job done. The amount of interaction with the Sistine Chapel is rather large, people come from all over the world to view it, but as per the powerpoint, these pilgrimages to see the art are more like "field trips." People of course come in contact with replicas of the image all the time on mugs, shirts, umbrellas, key chains, etc. but these generally depict only a piece of the entire masterpiece. Thus interaction with the whole work is limited. On the other hand, the Disney logo (which represents Disney movies) would be considered a product of the culture industry. Disney movies are the same story told over and over with a different princess representing the damsel in distress each time. (This particularly applies to the classics, which are watered down versions of older stories, often with gruesome, unhappy endings.) These movies have been carefully processed to give specific messages to young children, the indoctrination into the culture industry clearly begins at a very young age. The movies are made with mass appeal in mind, time constraints are very important to the success of a Disney movie (generally no more than 90 minutes) and large teams are put together for production of these films. Of course there is pressure to be entertaining, even more so on films directed at young children with short attention spans, and there is a load of money to be made for select people if the product is successful in its aims (what with DVD sales, toys, clothes, bed spreads, sleeping bags, dental hygiene endorsement deals, etc.) With all of the above, Disney movies meet just about every criteria of a culture industry product. Don't misunderstand me, I love Disney movies, but I am fully aware that I fall into the trap of the culture industry when I watch them, and that if i allow my children to watch them, I will be perpetuating the cycle. In this way, the culture industry is expanded by inheritance, the people on top of these monopolies can count on parents to aid them in their efforts.
http://msopal29.myweb.uga.edu/entire%20ceiling.jpg image 1
http://static.flickr.com/98/238814340_45aa9316f5_o.png image 2
1 comment:
Maxine, I really enjoyed your analysis of Adorno's perception of the culture industry. However, I disagree with the idea that the Sistine Chapel ceiling is an autonomous or freely created work of art. Part of Adorno's problem with formulaic creations was the loss of what he termed "artistic self-expression" (How to Look at Television 226). There is no doubt that Michelangelo's artistic talents and intentions are reflected in the Sistine Chapel, but they are not the only motivation behind the paintings. Pope Julius II commissioned the works and his preferences affected the works. Also wielding influence were Catholic Church doctrines and the social context of the era (i.e. the classical portrayal of the figures relates to the emphasis on humanism present in Europe at this time). You said in your post that "Truly autonomous art does not conform to accepted standards...." Knowing that standards most definitely played a role in Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel, I would not classify it as a freely created, autonomous work.
Post a Comment