Post 8

Step I.)

If one were to ask Theodor Adorno, during the time in which he was living of course, his opinions on the current and possible future state of cultural entities such as art and entertainment, such a question would most likely have been answered with some far more complex and philosophically thought out/reasoned response basically surmising: “The arts and similar forms of expressive entertainment are going straight to Hell in a hand-basket!” One could at least assume such a response on Adorno’s part after reading his literary commentary on what he appropriately deemed the Culture Industry. Adorno was strongly convinced that, as performance oriented material previously known as art (i.e. music, screenplay, etc.) became increasingly used by those with strictly monetary aspirations as a sufficient source of capitol, so the opportunity for the interpreter (the viewer/listener/consumer) to be presented with original, inventive, meaningful and thought inspiring mediums of entertainment greatly diminished, as well even the awareness of the consumer that such a possibility once existed, and that they were in fact deprived of it by the Culture Industry.

Perhaps one of the beliefs at the root of Adorno’s dissatisfaction with the culture industry was that it was nothing short of an absolute monopoly run by people with capitalist values. In his own words, “Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows.” Obviously, Adorno strongly believed that those in power of the entertainment industry who were responsible for the production and distribution of its contents to the masses were, without question, the absolute authority on such matters, and received few checks and balances as to the overall quality of the product that their culture machines relentlessly churned out. In his 1944 writing, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Adorno followed the previously quoted statements with the assertion that, “Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce.” These statements delineate Adorno’s thought that the super powers of the entertainment industry, those with the sole aspiration of making extravagant sums of money off of the sale of a product, are not, by any means, promoting the prosperity of ingenuity or art, but rather encourage the mass consumption of much less cognitively stimulating material. Obviously, being a lifelong appreciator and connoisseur of the arts, Adorno was extremely distraught by the realization that those mediums of entertainment which were becoming most readily available to and consumed by the general public were not birthed by the minds of artists who wished to incite deep thought, and perhaps even conflict in the mind of their viewer, but were rather spat out of an all-encompassing machine whose only concern was the enlargement of its creators paycheck, and therefore the creation of a product so neutral in its political/social suggestions and themes that it might be enjoyed and purchased by as many members of as many demographics as possible.

Aside from the blatantly capitalistic values held by those in places of high power in the culture industry, and possibly even more disturbing to Adorno was the product itself which was spewed forth from this industry. Due to desires of mass production and distribution, the end result of the culture industry’s diligent work was created with every intention of being as non-provocative as possible to its potential buyer. It was because of this hope of those at the top of the culture industry to shape a product that would be loveable by the many that such a seemingly generic, “cheap imitation” of true art was created. Such material was brought about in hopes of being sold many times over, and therefore paid little attention to that element of art that makes it truly powerful: the ability to provoke questions of socio and political substance in the mind of the viewer. No, certainly there is little time for such idealist mumbo jumbo when there are possible buyers who desire immediate, effortless, and mindless satisfaction. Adorno gives an example of the very type of inventive and expressive art that the culture industry has all but completely stifled the voice of: “When the detail won its freedom, it became rebellious and, in the period from Romanticism to Expressionism, asserted itself as free expression, as a vehicle of protest against the organisation. In music the single harmonic effect obliterated the awareness of form as a whole; in painting the individual colour was stressed at the expense of pictorial composition; and in the novel psychology became more important than structure.” In stark contrast to these once flourishing styles of expressive and often times free-form art, Adorno asserts that that which is produced by the culture industry is completely slave to form, guidelines, and therefore predictability. In fact, Adorno himself stated that, “Though concerned exclusively with effects, it crushes their insubordination and makes them subserve the formula, which replaces the work,” (Theodor Adorno, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, 1944). That final statement, that “the formula…replaces the work” is, to any who appreciate the nourishment of true art and the free thinking that it promotes, quite a disheartening truth of the culture industry’s control over that which is deemed “art” by present society.

When presented with such blunt truths of the mass consumed entertainment mediums that the culture industry has had every part in creating, one can’t help but shed a tear for the “good ol’ days” of an era that gave far more public attention to those forms of art that displayed freely expressed social/political opinions and assertions. Adorno’s discontent with the content produced by those giants of the culture industry are certainly not unwarranted, especially when the mass produced forms of entertainment so widely consumed today are compared with the art that was given far more appreciation and public acclaim yesterday.

Step II.)

In contrast to Adorno’s obvious disapproval of the culture industry, many hold the belief that the current entertainment industry has merely created the possibility for a more widespread display and purchase of artists’ work, and that it is therefore a very positive business in regards to the promotion of art in society. Certainly there is sufficient evidence to support this belief. Statistically speaking, artists and entertainers of today are presented with more opportunity (in America as well as number of other nations) to become extremely financially successful, mostly as a direct result of the type of capitalist minds that created the many money making machines that now constitute the culture industry. Though some would argue that artists must give up much of their work’s originality and unique identity and conform it to a set of standards deemed most marketable by those industries which promote it, nonetheless, these artists are presented with much more opportunity in present times to sign contracts with numerous business which insure the widespread awareness and subsequent sale of their work. Mediums such as television, public cinema, and A.M./F.M. radio, and the more recently popularized internet present artists with previously unheard of possibilities of both nationally and internationally publicizing their art. Therefore, in one sense or another, the culture industry has, in its exponential growth, created many more job/payment opportunities for the artists of today in comparison to those available to the artists of centuries past. Though this point does not comment greatly on the overall effect that such a vastly growing industry has had on the quality of art in the societies that have embraced its norms, one would be hard pressed to argue against the thought that the industry has certainly brought new monetary and general public awareness opportunities to artists.

Part III.)

Theodor Adorno believed that massive differences exist between the type of “art” produced by the culture industry and that which was created by the free expression and creativity of artists less concerned with capitalist views. The biggest and most important of these contrasts is the difference in the reasons for which both are created. As is made quite clear in Adorno’s writing, the mass produced “art” of the entertainment industry is created, and perhaps more importantly, promoted and distributed with one simple intention: to make money for its manufacturer/distributor. On the other hand, more freely expressive and inventive works of art are created in order to express, through any number of mediums, an original thought/idea of the artist, which is intended to then be meditated over and interpreted by the viewer.

One example of the sort of inventive art that expresses new and innovative ideas is Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9. This symphony is an absolute masterwork of Beethoven’s, and not only far exceeded the limitations, norms, and imagination displayed in any of the composer’s previous symphonies, but those of any symphony by any composer that came before it. The work’s intertwining themes and motives are unforgettable, and the musical architecture that was utilized in its unconventional structure are absolutely genius, to say the least. Most importantly (in this case of this argument), Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony was not created with the intentions of being recorded onto a CD, distributed to stores ‘round the world, and sold by the millions. Beethoven wrote this symphony simply because the music was droning on in his head (and only in his head being that, by the point at which he wrote the symphony, he had been completely deaf for years), and he wanted to share it with an audience. For these reasons and for many more which the constraints of this blogg submission simply do not allow for the necessarily extensive explanation of, Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 is an excellent example of legitimate, inventive, and immensely creative art.

On the other side of the spectrum, a piece of work that is of the same medium as Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony (music), and therefore perhaps somewhat appropriately compared with Beethoven’s timeless classic is Jimmy Buffet’s “Cheeseburger in Paradise”. Buffet’s unfortunately not-so-easily-forgotten tune, catchy as it may be, is in no way inventive, or really even creative, aside from the manner by which it glorifies the classic American grease-treat. This pop song follows every structural norm in the “book” of pop songwriting, complete with a couple of versus, a chorus here and there, a signature “catch-phrase”, and all the predictable chord and melodic progression that can be squeezed into the utterly limiting confines of a standard three to five minute radio tune format. The motive for creating a piece of music that does a great deal more of conforming to the norms of a certain style than it does expressing any new or innovative ideas is to ensure the work’s being purchased by a targeted demographic whose tastes are believed to consist of the very specifics by which the song was crafted. Thus, again, the true intention of those who create and who see to the mass production/distribution of such works are not nearly as concerned with giving cultural awareness to an idea or innovation as they are with padding their exceedingly swelling bank accounts.