Shea post 8

Adorno does not seem to have one singular problem with the culture industry. Each of the flaws he brings to light is given comparably equal attention. The first of these problems is homogenization. Despite the overwhelming number of mediums and so called styles of popular culture that exist today the categorical differences between them are superficial at most. The common denominator among all forms taken by the culture industry has to do exclusively with money. Of course the ‘capitalist gaze’ is concerned with an item or commodity’s money making capacity. But Adorno takes this one step further by arguing that “The universal criterion of merit is the amount of ‘conspicuous production,’ of blatant cash investment” exhibited by an item (Adorno, 3). Adorno argues that this system of value assignment is not only arbitrary but cyclic. That thing, whether it be a car a movie or a sculpture, that puts on the flashiest, most indulgently superfluous show becomes the most valuable thing and can therefore set itself at the highest price. Those who can afford this price become the new owners of a gaudy excess that will come to define their social status.

This example does not point a clear finger at who is to blame for the cycle. Is it the mindless consumer, whose tastes are configured by the capacity of his/her pocketbook? Or is it the company or so called artist whose products are constructed always with more in mind and never with meaning. Adorno never fully answers this question. Blame is placed on both ends of the bargain; “industry robs the individual of his function. Its prime service to the customer is to do his schematizing for him.” (Adorno, 3) Here it is suggested that the factory is the villain. Pumping out commodities a mile a minute and hurling them at buyers with no intent beyond that of profit in mind “leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience.” (Adorno, 4) In this way minds are limited to what is available to them. And if this availability is always configured around societal convention, the norms that only change towards further unification, then convention becomes the preference. “The diner must be satisfied with the menu.” (Adorno, 10)

The buyers, however, are not the innocent victims. “Immovably, they insist upon the very ideology which enslaves them.” (Adorno, 7) With this, it is asserted that the masses will accept no less, or really no more, than that to which they have become accustomed. In Adorno’s mind, the real danger lies in the simultaneous availability of the truth. We know and yet we do. This concept is particularly evident within the film industry. Now more than ever, people flock to the cinema not in search of answers or even inspiration, but of a falsified escape from reality that they know will not be delivered. “Pleasure hardens into boredom because, if it is to remain pleasure, it must not demand effort and therefore moves rigorously into the worn grooves of association.” (Adorno, 9) The formulaic predictability of what can hardly be called plotlines mimics the infiltrated and consequently rule-bound reality that they were trying to transcend in the first place.

This ubiquity is part of the real danger that comes with the culture industry “monster”, so to speak. One need not open a magazine or turn on the television to observe the culture industry; it is every place at every time, dominating the lives of those who are at once subservient to it and responsible for it. Adorno’s fear is that, with time, nothing will be exempt. “The ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politics.” (Adorno, 2) Already, political campaigns have become something of a popularity contest with money as the driving force behind them. Furthermore, the real art that is, in Adorno’s mind, worthy of praise and respect is threatened by commoditization. “If a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely ‘adapted’ for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled into a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.” (Adorno, 2) With actions like these we face the charge not only of insulting the integrity of pieces of worthwhile, imaginative art, but of robbing it of its immortal quality. Real art is not subject to the whim of the people, it is meant to have a timeless quality that may speak in some way to people of all generations of all nations.

The culture industry has expanded perhaps not at the same rate as the population has expanded but the comparison is worthwhile. The more people there are, it can be argued, the more will want to participate in the various forms of media. This has to do with the glamour and influence that is associated with media but this influence is not limited to film and television. The accessibility and popularity of things like myspace and u-tube make for a new kind of culture industry in which virtually anyone can participate. Regulations, regarding acceptable vs. unacceptable are still enforced and the participants in general adhere to standards of what other people would want to see. Although these types of products are not for profit, the basic rules of the culture industry still apply which works to further evidence its dominant influence over modern life.

The primary difference between imaginative and formulaic works lies within the images’ message. A picture for profit will not only tell the viewer how to look at it but what to think of it.

Here, it is not even important that the viewer know what CR-V stands for. The name of the car is irrelevant against the name of the company and the pseudo-subliminal message behind the text. We are not so much encouraged to buy the product as we are to want to the product. This is of course the intent behind all advertising; to create a desire within the customer that will result in spending. But this billboard makes the intent so obvious that it is almost laughable. No incentive is offered, no reason for the craving. The message is so linear that no interpretation is necessary. It displays a direct association between one feeling and one item that cannot be questioned. The fact that we are not expected to laugh can be attributed to "control of the individual consciousness." (Adorno, 1) (source)

This piece by Salvador Dali is called Telephone in a Dish with Three Grilled Sardines at the End of September. (source) What in the world does that mean? The objects in the foreground could be classified as some form of mimesis but the title and and rest of the painting beg to differ. We are directed towards the objects at the front at the command of the title but it is against our will that we focus on them. His work with shadows and perspective dimensions is unquestionably imaginative. the juxtaposition of such ordinary yet categorically opposite objects with one another, furthered by their collective proximity to something so far from the ordinary as to be incomprehensible, inspires frustration, confusion and intrigue within the viewer that does not command that they take any action in particular. The response is up to them. Dali's work also satisfies that requirement of Adorno's that art "create truth by lending new shape to the conventional social forms..."