Morgan, Post 8

Morgan Frost

Step One:

Adorno presents us with what is wrong with the culture industry through his examinations of the dangerous and stifling effects of the homogenization and commodification of culture. He shows us how our industrialized culture today has lost the “equilibrium between its social ideology and the actual social conditions under which its consumers live(d)” that the earlier popular culture of the 18^th century maintained (Adorno 218). Within this unbalanced state, our culture has evolved into its state of “adherence to the almost unchanged ideology of early middle-class society, (when) the lives of its consumers are completely out of phase with this ideology” (Adorno 219). With this separation of reality and the accepted social standards, many have succumbed to the forms of culture industry and become the “blind and passive victims” Adorno warns against (Adorno 235). Adorno recognizes the effect of the culture industry on an increasingly controlled social structure, and under it the loss of respect for individual power and the detachment from values this includes.

Adorno focuses on the rise in measurement and organization of culture as a commodity. He notes in The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception with Horkheimer that as soon as we begin to measure things under our technological rationale we are beginning to dominate. Our society today has “transformed the traditional values into the norms of an increasingly hierarchical and authoritarian structure” (Adorno 219). All of this is done under the guise of capitalism and the freedom it implies. We are made to think that free competition and the absence of government control also frees us from ideological control. But in truth, culture of the masses has become a commodity to be sold to its consumer base. It is inevitable that the producer is aware of the audience, as the concept of capitalism is still a concept of economy and the production and distribution of goods to its receiving body. Artists, musicians, filmmakers, and the like operate within the capitalist market and it is true that they have full freedom to create whatever they desire. But in order to succeed financially and as a respected creator, the objects produced must fit within society’s framework of cultural value. What is deceiving is the vastness of this framework. There are so many options and fields of interest to supply for that we may assume our creation is made through the liberty of our own minds. But the eclectic has been unified into the single culture industry—producing works we quantize into categories such as the genres of film, art, music, literature, etc. If an artist thinks he or she is creating something original, the culture industry can show them to reconsider. His or her work can be sold as part of any class; even what one would deem miscellaneous or unique works can be put into groupings of abstract thinking.

With what Adorno calls a “culture monopoly,” the capitalist industry has come to “fit in to totalitarian creeds” as Adorno analyzes specifically with television shows. Though society may preach freedom of ideas, the amount of control held over production of culture is undeniable, making this freedom an unrealistic but pleasing claim. An American tourist may enjoy eating meat in a foreign country, but when he is told it is the meat of a dog, he is upset because dogs are valuable to his culture as a companion rather than a meal. And so when another meal is served he will ask the server, “Just don’t tell me what kind of meat this is,” as if not taking accountability for the truth makes it nonexistent. The culture industry has assumed this kind of justification, and society overlooks the extreme control quite willingly, happily satisfied and all too comfortable with the illusion of freedom it pretends to fulfill.

Under this dominating control of culture, we see the danger of suppression of the individual that our society claims to instead value. And it is true that we value the individual—as long as the individual’s ideas and creations can be fit into our measured realm of culture industry. Adorno notes that “those who produce the material follow…innumerable requirements, rules of thumb, set patterns, and mechanisms of controls which by necessity reduce to a minimum the range of any kind of artistic self-expression” (Adorno 226). Though he is examining television here, the concept is prevalent throughout the culture industry. Especially since, as Adorno mentions, products today are most often created by the collaborative efforts of numerous people. The work is not created only by an individual, but goes through a series of changes and marketing techniques by many people. The path of the individual is obliterated by the crowds that tread upon it. With this mass expression it is evidently necessary that “one has to be ‘realistic,’ that one has to give up romantic ideas, that one has to adjust oneself” to the interests accepted through the industrialized cultural standards. This means that with the rise of the culture industry we see people looking not simply for their own ideas, but their own ideas that fit into the views of the masses. Even if an individual fathoms something unique, his “particular brand of deviation from the norm (is) noted by the industry” and subsequently sold as a uniqueness within the industry (Adorno and Horkheimer). Thus even the little value left for individuals is usurped and adopted by the mass culture. In this way the producers of art have become businessmen rather than artistic individuals. In order to be successful, their products must sell, and so the process of creating them is imbued with this subconscious direction toward consumers. Adorno and Horkheimer point out that by calling distribution of cultural products “industry,” the businesses do not even need to call their products art anymore, as they have become items of economy regardless. The recognition of culture as an industry forms an ideology that purports to justify the framing and quantization of artistic forms produced.

Adorno strongly presents his case that we can be reduced to consumers of cultural products in a capitalistic world. Though he clearly, however briefly, states his sentiment that he does not want society to become “blind and passive victims” of the culture industry and that we need to put art into its “proper context and perspective” in order to not be victimized in such a way, he does not go into depth on any method of avoiding this result (Adorno 235). The concept is much like that expressed by Mary Devereaux when she observes that “the informed spectator is a more critical spectator, and the critical spectator is one less likely to be victimized by the text” (Devereaux 137).

An author that truly explores a process of overcoming this undesirable control of industry on individuals is national award winning author Walker Percy in his work “The Loss of the Creature.” In this essay he reveals the potential of an object or idea to possess a certain value he terms the “it.” The problem is that this object or idea also comes in a “package” that the value must be extracted from. This “it” must be recovered by the person, and in today’s society the person most often fails to exert the effort to obtain the “it,” and is instead satisfied with being a consumer of the package. For example, in Percy’s work tourists flood the Grand Canyon daily, yet they do not recover its “it.” They instead wander about taking pictures and listening to the tour and buying concessions and fanning themselves with brochures. These people take in these details as part of the Grand Canyon experience, and so are merely consumers of the package—not recoverers of the true “it.” But another man in the story finds a place off the beaten path to camp out in his tent. At sunrise he hikes to the Grand Canyon to discover it and as he looks at it he is truly able to experience the “it.” Through “The Loss of the Creature,” Percy analyzes the methods by which a person can or cannot exercise personal sovereignty in achieving the experience of the true “it.” It is very interesting to look at his work with Adorno’s, as the parallel can be drawn that it is crucial for society today to be conscious of its position as a consumer, and to resist being set within this rigid framework and instead discover the freedom of the individual.

Step Two:

The culture industry can be looked at like the surface of a vast ocean. While it has expanded exponentially to cover an incredible area, its depth is considerably limited. Its expansion has not been a growth of any kind except by size, and it has failed to gain any purpose other than to satiate the commodity thirst of consumers. This is caused by what Adorno and Horkheimer refer to as how “the irreconcilable elements of culture, art and distraction, are subordinated to one end and subsumed under one false formula: the totality of the culture industry.” This is to say that the culture industry can consume every element of culture and reduce it through the quantification and categorization of it. But what keeps the addition of new materials on a shallow level is the fact that “the interest of innumerable consumers is directed to the technique, and not to the contents” of a work. Adorno and Horkheimer make sure to note that the technique they refer to is not the technique of the artist in creating the work, but of the industry in the “distribution and mechanical reproduction” which remains “external to its object.” Here we see that they are articulating that it is not what the work actually portrays that we find is important to the culture industry, but instead the “package” that it is delivered in—which in their opinion is “stubbornly repeated, outworn, and by now half-discredited.”

Any kind of art can be seen as evidence for this. Movies, books, music—everything takes on an identity that we have seen either part or all of somewhere else. It might be the actual content we have seen before (such as the story of Romeo and Juliet playing out in modern films “Romeo and Juliet,” “West Side Story,” “Lovers of the Arctic Circle,” “Map of the Human Heart,” etc.), or it might simply be the category we have seen before (a new concept in music but within the realm of country music). Instead of exploring one category more in depth, culture industry causes society to consume more—not more profoundly.

Step Three:

The difference that Adorno saw between products of freely created artwork and products of the culture industry is that the latter serves a second purpose other than to fulfill the needs of consumers while the former has no other purpose than this. In his work with Horkheimer he describes how true culture “did not simply accommodate itself to human beings,” but “raised a protest against the petrified relations under which they lived.” So the mark of true culture is a mindset that does not accept the structure in which it exists, but a mindset that can analyze and question this structure. Mark Tansey’s work titled The Innocent Eye Test perfectly demonstrates this concept. With the cow being shown as a judge of the realistic quality of the painting, Tansey questions the way we judge art. He recognizes that we must question who the experts are on such subjects as paintings and who has the authority to claim what a piece of art truly is or represents. Thus Tansey’s work does not solely serve the purpose of accommodating society, but questioning an element of society’s structure.

Formulaic culture industry products, however, do not have any other purpose separate of their market value. With the rise of the culture industry we see an “intolerance of ambiguity (which) is the mark of an authoritarian personality” (Adorno). This authoritarianism is exercised through the calculated market of commodities as only such. For example, TV shows have come to provide the consumer with a marked value as pertaining to horror, comedy, romance, adventure, etc. When we pick up a TV Guide and browse its contents we are forced into this measured framework and find ourselves directed by our own preferences but those that can grab our attention and appeal to us the most. What we find does not need to serve any purpose other than the filling of time with a viewing experience we are told is valuable as a commodity.

The difference between these two types of art matters to Adorno because the dominance of the commodity type reveals a change in society that stifles true freedom of thought and the individual. He points out that “Although the culture industry undeniably speculates on the conscious and unconscious state of the millions towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary, but secondary, they are an object of calculation…The customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object…” (Adorno and Horkheimer). Here he delivers us to the conclusion that the overwhelmingly increasing trend toward commodity does not offer true value. Adorno and Horkheimer show that the disaster that is forming from this problem is society’s acceptance of it. “The phrase, the world wants to be deceived, has become truer than had ever been intended. People are not only, as the saying goes, falling for the swindle; if it guarantees them even the most fleeting gratification they desire a deception which is nonetheless transparent to them. They force their eyes shut and voice approval, in a kind of self-loathing, for what is meted out to them, knowing fully the purpose for which it is manufactured.” And here the difference between imaginative art and commodified art is paramount. Where art lacking the imaginative element can do nothing but feed a hungry populous with sheer volume of material, creative art can influence people to question their own world and to not become one of the many victims of the culture industry’s commodification and homogenization of culture.

Kim post 8

Kim Hambright

(1) Theodor Adorno wrote about consumerist society in many essays, including How to Look at Television and The Cultural Industry: Enlightenment and Mass Deception, in which he criticized the fabrication of so-called creative media. It was his opinion that mass culture, and ultimately the media, play an integral part in how the everyday individual thinks, feels, and goes about his or her life. He felt that the imposition of media, such as television, movies, radio, and advertisements affect the way one views creativity and freedom of thought: one only sees what producers and corporations want them to see, as opposed to what he or she desires to view on his or her own. To quote Adorno directly, “middle-class “ontology” assumes an increasingly authoritarian and at the same time hollow character.” What Adorno means by this, is that the average consumer is trained from an early age to pay close attention to superficial and consumerist things, as opposed to more human ideas. Movies, televisions, and other media seem to promote prefabricated ideas such as the overt sexuality of women, and the need for material possessions, in an attempt to promote and sell products like Lip Venom lip gloss and the new Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 to continue the growth of our capitalistic nation.

In addition, Adorno thought that the mass production of creative entities works to eliminate one’s free thought. He felt that the relentlessness of commercial media and controlled distribution of ideas prohibited one from formulating thoughts and ideas of one’s own, and therefore weakened the intellect of society. In his words, “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.” The idea of a society controlled by the images in its media scared Adorno. He felt that because of over-used plots and cliché storylines television had become hard pressed to “have a serious effect any more.” The idea of any art form withholding a serious meaning or effect is a dangerous one. Art for art’s sake is in itself is not harmful, however, when aesthetic art is the only art, society loses its ability to formulate new thoughts, to speak out against the ill of society, and to improve and document the society itself.

(2) In my opinion, the culture industry has expanded so much that it will soon be out of control, if it is not already there. Advertisements and movies, as well as television shows and music, have become more sexually explicit than most people would like to believe. In a recent advertisement I saw for Tom Ford’s cologne, a bottle of cologne is placed between the legs of a female model. In a similar advertisement for the same cologne, the bottle is placed between a woman’s breasts, with her mouth open in the shape of an “O.” The images use the cologne bottle as a phallic symbol to appeal to the sexuality of heterosexual men. Through the objectification of the women in, the viewer looks at the advertisements and cannot help but associate this certain cologne with the act of having sexual relations with a woman similar to the ones in the photos. My point is that ten or twenty years ago, images like these would ever have been seen. Over the last few years, the levels of modesty and morality of the media has been lowered. Thinking about the amount of promiscuous reality shows on television, many will agree with my belief that society is becoming more and more accepting of sex, especially with young people. If TV shows and advertisements aren’t enough, just look at the 57 billion dollar industry of pornography.

Cologne breast

Cologne legs

In terms of marketing, I also feel that a line has been crossed. Looking at the cover of this book entitled “Rethinking Commodification,” the image of a baby with a barcode tattooed on its body sends a strong message. As a culture, we focus a lot of out attention on material things. We buy what makes us happy at the moment, and many times, it only makes us happy because it is what society has told us will make us happy. The control media has over consumers, while certainly not the consumers’ fault, is ultimately controlled by members of the same society. The stereotypes surrounding certain products or entertainment resources place consumers in “pre-established pigeonholes” and market the behaviors and buying guidelines of certain groups of people. These people have ultimately no control over what society tells them to do, and because of the ever-present dynamic of societal control, they are forced to buy into the consumerist propaganda. As Adorno puts its, “The more stereotypes become reified and rigid in the present setup of cultural industry, the less people are likely to change their preconceived ideas with the progress of their experience.”

(3) Adorno believed that thoughts and ideas (and ultimately products) were divided into two categories: commercialized products created for a pre-determined audience, and individually thought up works created without the influence of society. To Adorno, commercialized products could be art or entertainment, or products from any genre, including radio, television, music, advertisement, and film, to name a few. The products created in this area are created with the help of society, as opposed to creations purely by an individual. The products will either support a commercialized idea, a gender norm, the government, or another strong social entity. Though the creator, and the consumer, might think they are creating something unique, there is a certain cliché that exists with all products make for a pre-determined audience. The store Hot Topic for example, sell alternative music and “unique” clothing, though, as a chain store, how unique can the music and clothing really be? Another example is the movie “Sweet Home Alabama.” It falls into the genre of “chick flicks” and has a easily determined ending. The girl ends up with the good guy, what a shock.

At the other end of the spectrum, freely created works are ideas and thought up without the help of social norms and restrictions. Works in this genre are extremely hard to categorize because there are so few works created entirely by an individual. Even a girl who sews her own clothes cannot be considered in this category, because on some level, her designs were influenced by the trends and norms of society. Adorno may have included Pablo Picasso in this category, because for his time, his artwork was completely new and avant garde. Likewise, a documentary about the ills of social consumerism may be considered a freely imaged artwork, as long as it does not follow the traditional plotline of any stereotypical film genre.

The differences between these two types of creation were incredibly important to Adorno based on his belief that society and the commodification and homogenization of culture had taken a step too far. In Adorno’s beliefs, the restraints on society, placed there by the conglomerations controlling the advertising and entertainment industries have so much control over the populous that “it is almost impossible for anyone to dodge” the expected norms and behaviors. It is important to note the near impossibility there is for one to create a imaginately created work, because it was Adorno’s idea that society restricts one’s creativity. Without the ability to think for oneself, one loses their creative power, and thus become another drone for the consumerist nation.

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.

Ally, post 8

Ally Best
post 8

As I was staring at my blank computer screen, trying to build up the courage to type in those first couple letters, I began thinking about the culture industry and, more specifically, culture. What exactly is culture anyways? The best definition I could come up with was the “stuff” that so-called “intellectuals” studied in order to better understand a group of people. As my mind drifted farther and farther from the blinking bar in front of me, I remembered back to a high school bio class in which we discussed “cultures.” Something rang a bell, so I looked up the definition of “culture,” not its classical meaning, but its scientific one. The definition I found from Merriam Webster, “the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media,” finally made me understand the meaning of culture and, in effect, Adorno’s problem with the “culture industry.” If we ignore the part about bacteria, this definition really does explain culture’s aim; it uses “prepared media” to cultivate “living material.” From this definition, one word in particular stuck out: “living.” Culture is supposed to be full of life. In essence, Adorno’s complaint with the “culture industry” is that it is taking the “life” out of modern culture. In Adorno’s opinion, culture should be about expression, imagination, and spontaneity. Culture should force people to actually think. However, the “culture industry,” as he describes it, removes these elements from culture by turning it into an industry that uses standard “formulas for success” to produce the greatest profit. It causes the individual to live in an almost “sleepwalking” state. First, it creates a need for the consumer and then it provides a product to fill that need. Adorno states that “The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him,” and goes on to explain that industry’s “prime service to the consumer is to do his schematizing for him” (Culture Industry). In effect, the culture industry is removing intellectual thought from many aspects of life. Rather than analyze the thousands of different images and sounds that society thrusts upon the viewer each and every day, he or she is forced to simply observe them as an uninvolved bystander. Yet, even while viewers are simply “taking in” the culture industry, the culture industry itself is playing a much less passive role on them. As people are bombarded with different forms of media, they are steadily manipulated into robot-like life forms. They accept what is being presented to them at face value, without bothering to question or consult their own personal views. Adorno blames this deterioration of the consumer’s imagination and thought on “the objective nature of the products themselves” (Culture Industry). Most pieces of entertainment are so full of fast-paced action or overwhelming visuals that neither require nor stimulate any thought from the viewer. Adorno’s dislike of the culture industry is not limited to its effect on the viewer, but also its effect on media itself. Media today follows a recipe. For example, movies have happy endings. This statement has nearly become an expectation in modern-day culture, so much so that any deviation from it is oftentimes met with disapproval by the viewer. While occasionally the creators of mass media stray a little from the recipe, adding a pinch more of this ingredient or, if they are truly adventurous, an entirely new ingredient, they never seem to truly break free from the constraints of the recipe and create a masterpiece entirely their own. The culture industry has discovered a recipe that consumers like and will, therefore, “eat” and it is unwilling to venture out from this guarantee of success (and profit).

The fact that the culture industry is growing exponentially is undeniable. As Ashley pointed out yesterday in class, the average American views/hears/is exposed to approximately 4000 advertisements each and every day. Advertising is probably the most obvious form of the influential media to which Adorno refers. At least its motives are clear: buy this, go there, try that. The consumer has no trouble determining the purpose of the ad. However, there are many other forms of media which are not entirely as transparent. Movies do not come right out and say “Buy Me!” Yet, the goal of virtually every producer is to turn a profit. So, movies are produced in such a way that people will like them, not so they portray any groundbreaking, thought-provoking ideas. The best evidence of the growth of such media is obtained by simply using common sense. As the use of technology grows, so does communication. Through this increased communication, it only makes sense that the culture industry has expanded uncontrollably. For example, as the internet became more widespread, more advertisers and other media-producers used this easily accessible resource. The controversy created by films that stray even slightly from the accepted norms is further evidence of the spread of the culture industry. In the past, people created and viewed films as a way to express and consider different thoughts. Watching a movie required thought as well as observation skills. However, now any film that steps out of the rigid formula of filmmaking causes an immediate scandal. Passion of the Christ drew huge attention from the media, probably because it caused the viewer to actually think. It graphically presented an event that many people tended to gloss over. It caused the viewer to actually feel something. Brokeback Mountain is another example. When people view a set of ideas different from their own, they are forced to reconsider their own thoughts and beliefs. This evaluation requires an intrapersonal analysis that people in this hurried, hectic world are rarely willing to perform.

Movies are perhaps the best examples of the range of media. Most are very clearly profit-driven. However, for those producers brave enough to step outside the box, they allow a great deal of freedom and personal expression. Adorno refers to this difference when he contrasts a “freely competitive” society to a “virtually closed society in which one wants to be admitted or from which one fears to be rejected” (How to Look at Television). He explains numerous times how products of the culture industry are predictable and require very little thought. They are created using very specific guidelines that ensure their success. Chick flicks are a perfect example of movies that follow such guidelines. Let’s look at A Cinderella Story, a typical pre-teen chick flick. The intended audience is clearly girls from about 11 to 15 years old. In the creation of the movie, the director followed a very specific “recipe for success”: shy girl in pretty dress + popular jock guy= hours of entertainment for indiscriminating pre-teen audience. There are certainly no deep, thought-provoking ideas presented, but the 12 year old girl has no desire to think anyways when sitting just mere feet away from the TV screen where Chad Michael Murray is running around in football gear. Such movies target a specific audience and they use proven themes that said audience will enjoy. Tuesdays with Morrie, on the other hand, was not created according to such guidelines. Its purpose was to force the viewer to think; to evaluate their life. The film included more dialogue and less action than many other movies, thus allowing the viewer to really consider the themes and the themes’ relevance to his or her life.

Ashley G., Post 8

Ashley Green

1.) Towards the end of C.I. Reconsidered, Theodor Adorno states, "Human dependence and servitude, the vanishing point of the culture industry, could scarcely be more faithfully described than by the American interviewee who was of the opinion that the dilemmas of the contemporary epoch would end if people would simply follow the lead of prominent personalities." This statement alone seems to sum up the frustration Adorno holds towards the mass culture, or the culture industry, which he feels is an industry of anti-enlightenment. He states in his essay, Culture Industry that “today the culture industry has taken over the civilizing inheritance of the entrepreneurial and frontier democracy.” Adorno is extremely critical of the homogenization and commodification of culture. He feels that it fuses together the two spheres of art- high art and low art- to the detriment of both. (Adorno 17) High art thus crumbles under the scrutiny of it actual power and effectiveness and low art fails to keep its values of challenging societal norms and standards. (Adorno 17) Because of this, Adorno believes the motivation for creativity and innovation is not only lost but un-encouraged, and that individuality is lost through the culture industry. He also argues that the culture industry operates totally and that the whole world is made to pass through the culture industry. (Adorno 9) He believes that the culture industry functions largely through the promotion of homogenized ideologies and though we have the freedom to choose an ideology, what we are choosing is in the end all the same. (Adorno 15)

Many members of the Frankfurt school make similar claims about the negative effects of homogenized society. One important member of the school that I believe furthers the concepts of Adorno is Jurgen Habermas. While Adorno discussed homogenization in the realm of culture, Habermas discussed homogenization in the realm of socio-politics, particularly in his theory of the public sphere. Habermas’s discussion of the public sphere is important to Adorno’s predicted effects of the culture industry on society. Habermes theorized that beginning around the feudal era, there have been two spheres of society, the public and the private. Originally only a select few actually participated in these spheres, but after the Enlightenment Era, the spheres became open to most individuals. In our post-Enlightenment era, Habermas feels that the two spheres have began to merge, leaving the public sphere as the predominant influencer on the individual. Habermas felt that the media texts we consumed promoted a public sphere that was preoccupied with only satisfying the needs of a group rather than the individual. He predicted that the role of the media would become corporatized, and would promote the predominant ideology rather than focus of the individual as an autonomous being. This syncs into Adorno’s idea that the culture industry destroys individuality. By creating a homogenous society, we threaten our very autonomy.

2.) The claims that the culture industry have merely continued and expanded exponentially are completely true. This is due in large part to the utilization of the internet which allows for a greater broadening in the media produced for the masses. The growth of the culture industry is also evident in the way we consume media. The average person encounters on average 4,000 advertisements a day, spends more time in front of a TV than in school, views more than a 1,000 films in his or her lifetime, and hears over a 100,000 songs. Every aspect of that consumption is tailored to reach the maximum mass audience, not the individual. In 1983, there were roughly 50 media groups that were controlling 90% of the media and culture Americans consumed. In 2007, there are now only 6. Media conglomerates like Time Warner and General Electric control nearly every single bit of information and culture we receive. They control film, television, radio, newspaper, and magazine outlets addressing every single form of ideology, culture and counter-culture we can classify. The only possible exception to this is the internet, which in the end still promotes certain ideologies that have been imposed on us from mass culture.The expansion of culture industry is also due in large part to the overall globalization of mass culture. Social theorists like George Ritzer have now begun to analyze the effect of globalization in the culture industry, like the cases of Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, and Coca-Cola.

3.) To Adorno, the difference between formulaic culture industry products built according to specs of some target audience and freely and imaginatively created art works were who the works were intended for. Formulaic culture industry products are solely created for mass appeal and consumption, where freely and imaginatively created art works are made for the artist enjoyment alone, almost like art for art sake. In my opinion, when it comes to the creation of free and imaginative works, Adorno’s ideal artist is probably the bohemian artist, who is performing his craft for the benefit of performing it alone, instead of for fortune and fame. His idea of culture industry producers is anyone else who is not attempting to break the mold of the culture industry or facilitating the hegemony of the culture industry. I believe Adorno would see something like Kadinsky’s Composition VIII as ideal art, and the mug of another painting by Kandinsky as a preserver of the culture industry. Kadinsky created the work solely to innovate and expand the standards of art. The work does not strive to fulfill any societal standards of what is marketable or will make someone popular. The Kandinsky mug however is made solely for consumer consumption- to fulfill someone's interest or taste.

I worry that Adorno’s attacks on what is essentially pop-culture leaves no room for reasoning within the individual. In his essay Culture Industry, Adorno states, “The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him.” (Adorno 3) He assumes that whatever media and cultural texts we consume will demand us to completely stifle our individuality and force us into being mere cogs in the machine. I think that in doing so, Adorno removes us, as human beings, too far away from our autonomy and completely denies what separates us as humans in the first place- our ability to ration and reason.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/xxX0ddityXxx/mcdonald_messiah.jpg
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/kandinsky/kandinsky17.jpg
http://www.tate.org.uk/product/P26672-2740_2.jpg
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bst/lowres/bstn183l.jpg
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9489/banksyjb4.jpg

etibbetts post 8

Erica Tibbetts
1. I think Adorno’s major problem with mass produced culture is summed up in the following quite, “the style of the culture industry, which no longer has to test itself against any refractory material, is also the negation of style. The reconciliation of the general and the particular, of the rule and the specific demands of subject matter, the achievement of which alone gives essential, meaningful content to style, is futile because there has ceased to be the slightest tension between poles: these concordant extremes are dismally identical; the general can replace the particular and vice versa” (Adorno). Culture is supposed to reflect the values, artistic richness, and priorities of a people. If this people suddenly loses the ability to evaluate their ways of living, the things they consumer, the ideas they have become stagnant. This means that a people cannot grow collectively, but are stuck and stifled by the very network and expression of themselves they have created. A sort of cycle arises, whereby the current beliefs and values cannot be expressed because they cannot show through the old, and the future will be superseded by the present. In a sense nothing fresh or new can be done because without a way of getting rid of the old everything fits into the same old mold.

Adorno says that consumers are at the mercy of massed produced and targeted culture because, “Capitalist production so confines them, body and soul thay they fall helpless to what is offered them” (Adorno). This is dangerous because individuals lose the ability to think for themselves, they lose autonomy, creativity, any sort of critical eye, and the ability to evaluate media for themselves. By turning the viewer into a sort of automaton that has no ability to decide between good and bad, mass produced culture can then do/be whatever it wants. However, it is partly the unfeeling reactions of the viewer that allow culture to become what it is. The process is never entirely one-sided.

The problem with the culture industry, according to Adorno, is the sameness that now exists. All movies have the same ending, all shows, all books, all novels are produced to follow a certain pattern, and if they stray from this pattern they are not accepted. One of the things that allows culture to continue in its stagnation is the fact that, as Adorno points at, “The connosieur and the expert are despised for their pretentious claim to know better than the others, even though culture is democratic and distributes its privileges to all” (Adorno). So, culture has created a sort of cocoon that will not even allow of critique. To critique is to go against the majority, and proclaim one’s self a sort of outcast because the ability to step outside the masses shows an outsider way of thinking. Adorno says that this trend leads to, “constant reproduction of the same thing” (Adorno). If nothing can be critiqued, nothing can be changed.

I tend to disagree a little with Mr. Adorno here. I think that we have more ability to critique than he says we do. What we may not, however, be able to do, is step outside of the framework provided by fabricated culture. We cannot criticize our own culture because we embody our own culture. It would be like trying to lift yourself up by your shoelaces. In order to criticize our own culture we have to step outside ourselves, our language, our experience, our knowledge and our means of criticism. However we can criticize elements of our culture, like books, like movies, like television shows. Unfortunatly, also, we can only prepare this criticism in means of comparison and taste. Our taste is prepared for us by the elements of culture that we like, and these elements cannot help but be part of the mass produced culture we live in, or a reaction against said culture.

2. Almost everything “we” as Americans, as members of a capitalist society do today is surrounded, engrossed in, impossible without consumption or exposure to some sort of mass media. Television, radio, movies, music, billboards, newspaper ads, (even news itself) all contains some interest in materialism, commerce, and entertainment. As Adorno points out, “the irreconcilable elements of culture, art and distraction are subordinated and subsumed under one false formula: the totality of the culture industry. It consists of repetition” (Adorno). Everything seems to fall under the blanket of entertainment provided as culture. It is very hard to think of present day America, without some emblem of entertainment along side, whether it be the logo of a fast food chain, the face of a start athlete, a glamour photo of a Hollywood star or the words of a politician.

As Adorno points out, “Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work. It is sought after as an escape from the mechanized work process, and to recruit strength I order to be able to cope with it again” (Adorno). Work, play, amusement, relaxation; they all work together in a sort of mirroring and description of one another. Neither can have meaning without the other, and each is driven by the culture industry. Almost any job (although in this case, not every job) has some connection to entertainment, whether it is represented by the industry, or actually exists as part of its bureaucracy. Culture is inescapable anyway, as it is almost impossible to form an identity without some sort of national, local, or group identity, all of which revolve around the culture created by the chosen group. So, in order to not be an unidentifiable mass of individuals, we must adopt a culture, and if that turns out to be a culture defined by sameness, stagnation and mass media, we cannot help but adopt it, until we figure out how to change it.

3. Adorno defines the cause and effect, constancy of current culture that traps the individual in an inability to as follows: “Everybody must behave (as if spontaneously) in accordance with his previously determined and indexed level, and choose the category of mass product by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique is that used for any type of propaganda” (Adorno). Even though people think they have their own tastes and ideas about what makes good entertainment, they are deceived because media caters to and creates the tastes they think they have. People fit into different sections of mass produced media. Everyone has a demographic into which they are placed by age, lifestyle, gender, state of origin, and other factors that they use to identify themselves. Music, television, radio all cater to these forms of identity, but at the same time these identities are backed up, reinforced, and in part created by music television and radio. Culture then becomes the tightly bound, above critique, type of organism describe above.

This view of modern culture contrast Adorno’s description of traditional culture, which existed in the “Christian middle ages” and “Renaissance” due to “the different structure of social power, and not the obscure experience of the oppressed in which the general was enclosed” (Adorno). He says that, “the great artists were never those who embodied a wholly flawless and perfect style, but those who used style as a way of hardening themselves against the chaotic expression of suffering, as a negative truth” (Adorno). Style, culture that is pure and not mass produced, truth, only come about when artists strive against the majority belief, and try to do something that isn’t perfect, but is nonetheless art and culture. If all art has to fit in a box and has to conform to certain regulations, it ceases to be a purveyor of truth and becomes, as Adorno says, the opposite of truth.

Formulaic culture is the mystery novels, the romantic comedies, the pop songs, and the art adorning billboards. These types of culture and art are produced according to a newly designed set of regulations that do not allow for a deviation from what has been proven most popular to the most people. No one can branch out, nothing can be different, because to be different is to defy the very thing that created you and the very thing that everyone else subscribes to, the very way that everyone else thinks. And, to fight this culture is to validate it, to acknowledge that it is there, that it is dangerous and omni-present.

The traditional art, the “good” art is slightly more elusive. It must have been created before the explosion of pop culture that has taken over our lives. Good art does something that mass culture cannot even conceive of, whether as a reaction or as a part of the mass produced culture. Good art has to be created almost in a cultural vacuum, where nothing of the vapid outside world can enter. Emily Dickinson’s poetry, most of which was never published until after her death, Beethoven’s music composed as he was going deaf, Rauschenberg’s mixed media pieces, which not only do not conform to aesthetic tradition, but throw aesthetic tradition right out of the window; all of these examples of art could be seen as devoid of the sameness and emptiness that characterizes modern art.

Rob H, post 8

Rob Hoffman

1) Theodor Adorno’s writings address several primary and related concerns. Each of these various concerns is caused either directly or indirectly by the rapid expansion in the entertainment business and the effect that this might have upon our culture and our views of art. It is Adorno’s primary fear that the entertainment business has become a kind of “culture industry” that serves to stamp out creativity and individuality and present the public instead with a unified, homogenized picture of culture.

Adorno is right to identify this process with technological progression. The invention of the camera might have done more than any other single step to replace individually crafted images with mass produced ones. The machinations of culture control that he attributes to the culture industry was certainly not a premeditated goal at this point; rather, the ease of mass production and replication was simply reason enough in itself for this method to gain a stable foothold. It was only after it became clear that the majority of people had become accustomed to seeing nothing but mass produced images that the implications of how such images might be used really started to sink in.

There is no room left in the culture industry for individuals with creative and unique visions. Even if one manages to break through the standard uniformity, they are quickly labeled, boxed, and commodified. Jackson Pollock was allowed to paint his style of paintings because he was Jackson Pollock and that was what he did. It was still carefully controlled. Adorno argues that this manipulation by the culture industry eventually reduces the content of a work to insignificance. The style and form eventually become all that really matter, and this leads to an even more problematic issue for Adorno: “In the culture industry this imitation finally becomes absolute. Having ceased to be anything but style, it reveals the latter’s secret: obedience to the social hierarchy” (Adorno).

By standardizing the form and to a great extent the content of all new cultural material produced, the culture industry has done a remarkably effective job of creating an image of a homogenized, single culture. Outsiderness is discouraged due to the sheer force of the apparent standardization, and anyone who manages to overcome this obstacle and become an innovative outsider is made to look even more bizarre and foolish. Once the mass population has bought into the images they are given, they accept the assumptions and stereotypes of the paradigm in a very Kuhnian sense. Anyone who has the courage to disagree is made to look insane because they do not accept the assumptions of the paradigm. “When the outsider is excluded from the concern, he can only too easily be accused of incompetence” (Adorno).

What’s wrong with the culture industry is that it purports to depict the works of the people, and yet it stifles those very same people. Differing and dissenting opinions are ignored and even if they manage to come into being they are drowned out by the mass produced images created by the culture industry. It sells the people on the image it chooses, not the one that they choose.

2) If the origins of the domination of mass-produced images over individually crafted ones were in the invention of new technologies, then the rapid development of such mass-media innovations as the internet have certainly only increased the power of the culture industry. Youtube and other similar file-sharing websites alone have the power to dominate what the general public is viewing.

And yet, the internet also might offer some hope for overcoming this phenomenon. While the products of individual creation on the internet might not be viewed in the same way as art works produced by such individuals as Picasso or Pollock, the works of the internet users are still created with a certain freedom from the influences of the culture industry. True, they are likely still bound by the assumptions and influences that the culture industry has already drilled into them through other sources, but they still have the freedom to create individual works (even if the works themselves are likely to be confined within certain parameters of the paradigm).

Perhaps the strongest evidence that the culture industry is still running at full steam, however, is the continuation and even expansion of advertising. “The assembly-line character of the culture industry, the synthetic, planned method of turning out its products…is very suited to advertising” (Adorno). The ad industry represents billions of dollars in business every year; companies would not spend that kind of money if they did not feel that it was effective. We buy into ads more than we like to think that we do, even if the acceptance is at some subconscious level. Given how the mass produced art and music have been reduced to mere commodities, they fit perfectly well into the scheme of the advertisement business.

3) For my two examples of freely, imaginatively created art and formulaic products of the culture industry, I will actually be focusing on something slightly different than images. Writing could very well be accused of the same kind of structuring and commodification. An example of the former would be a poem by a poet such as T.S. Eliot. An example of the second type of product would be a poem printed on a Hallmark greeting card. The differences between these two should be apparent enough to need no direct enumeration. Instead, what does need further explication is Adorno’s reason for believing the former to be better than the latter.

The benefits of the T.S. Eliot poem would be (presumably) that the poem makes us think in ways we had not before and gives a deeper, more nuanced understand of the human condition. Much of this hinges upon understanding of the poem (no guarantee), but there is something seemingly valuable regardless of whether or not the poem seems accessible to anyone and everyone. The poem comes from a rather unique perspective, was created to deal with a specific issue, and came into being only as the result of great labor.

The poem in the Hallmark greeting card, while cute, lacks many of these same attributes. The main goal of the poem in the card is not to give a greater understanding of the nature of humanity or to broaden our scope of vision and thought, but rather to sell cards. And therein lies the difference. The Hallmark card is all about commodification, about selling itself. It normalizes us; the cards are not tailor made for us any more than they are made to accommodate those who wish to say unusual things in their greeting cards. The greeting card, while hardly oppressive in and of itself, is part of the mass produced system that tells us what our culture is and how we ought to feel about it.

Justin Wright Post 8

Justin Wright post 8

Part 1: The primary problem with the culture industry is that popular culture is a manufactured product. It is designed and implemented with money in mind, and with making money as the goal. In the art world, what has been done before has little success, but in mass culture familiarity and repetition almost guarantee it. In fact, when a new film or television broadcast tries to deviate too much from accepted standards, it often goes unnoticed and ends up fading into obscurity. Adorno said that “…the inferior work has always relied on its similarity with others – on a surrogate identity.” And thus, the entire mass culture consists of inferior works.

The culture industry hampers progress by creating its own traditions which are slow to change, and impossible to influence. So producers ran out of ideas and used formulaic clichés to build programs. In a given genre, films and shows will be similar, due to the reuse of successful material. The pioneering programs in any field will set the standard, and also set the audience’s expectations. So repetition becomes normal, and “as soon as the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and who will be rewarded, punished, or forgotten.” The happy ending is typical, and an audience will feel cheated if they expect it and it does not happen. But when an unhappy ending is expected and occurs, disappointment does not. “The outcome of all conflicts is pre-established, and all conflicts are mere sham.” Surprise usually unsettles an audience who likes to feel that they were right in their predictions. There are a few exceptions, but the majority of films and shows are repetitive, with “…entirely unproblematic, cliché-like characterization.”

The production of mass culture is also a key point in Adorno’s argument. Money is flaunted in the culture industry. “The universal criterion of merit is the amount of ‘conspicuous production,’ of blatant cash investment.” A high budget for a film signifies to some members of the audience that this film is better, because it was more expensive, and expensive things are generally better. Most of this money is spent on technical aspects, and the actual meaning behind the work is unaffected by money. Therefore money is presented as a false measure of quality. Also, no one person is responsible for anything in the production. Like theater, there may be many actors, but there will be many script writers, and superiors who govern what gets aired and produced. Adorno said that “…most products of mass media are not produced by one individual but by collective collaboration…” This is more closely related to a product such as an automobile, which is designed by many engineers, and built by many workers with different designated tasks, than a play written by a single playwright.

The culture industry has changed the way people today see art. Traditional art, or even any art in general that is not popular culture, is seen as elitist and therefore ignored. Mass culture is seen as the “democratic” medium of expression because the people supposedly prefer it. But the audience of mass culture has no say whatsoever over the content, usually not even over their own interpretations which are spoon-fed to them. “No independent thinking must be expected from the audience: the product prescribes every reaction: not by its natural structure (which collapses under reflection), but by signals.” Because of this lack of control on the part of viewers, producers can change public perceptions. “Above all, this rigid institutionalization transforms modern mass culture into a medium of undreamed psychological control. 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.” In other words, mass culture is making people’s tastes become more similar, which is ideal for easy marketing.

Part 2: There are noteworthy “fads” in popular culture going around today, and also new trends, and evolved genres. When the television show “Survivor” was aired, it received immensely positive reactions from audiences who eagerly watched and enjoyed it. The genre of reality television was born, and all shows in this category have distinct formulas to follow as well as being similar to the original. Variants have been made to appeal to different people, as the original “Survivor” is not so popular today. But reality television still consists of an objective played out over the season (or sometimes a single show), a prize, and supposedly no script. Social dynamics are the focus, as people form alliances and betray one another. Since essentially the same thing is going on in every show of the category, formulas are being followed, and variants are made only for marketing considerations rather than any thoughtful change in format.

Also advertising is probably more prominent than ever. The link between advertising and the culture industry is crucial, as it ties money inextricably with production. Advertising has increased, since more television commercials are aired, and the internet is now becoming more and more clogged by advertisements. A large portion of these advertisements are for the culture industry itself. By expanding to the realm of the internet, even those who opt out of television and film can be forced to be exposed to advertisements for the very things they abstain from.

Another trend has been the placement of advertisements within films and shows themselves. In a few films today, the camera will spend a split second with just a view of a brand of bottled water, or billboards will be shown in a scene of a city with real products on them. The brand of car that a character drives will be mentioned or placed as a central focus in a subtle way. Corporations now pay to actually change the content of mass culture in their favor. This was not done since the era of corporate sponsorship of television shows, where a product like Geritol would be the only thing advertised during the entire show and there were no commercials. After commercials were introduced, advertisements were divorced from programs themselves. In “The Brady Bunch” for example, brand labels are visibly covered up or obscured and were never mentioned in the dialogue. Today brand names are often mentioned in the conversation among characters, even when not a part of paid advertisements, just due to sheer commercialization.

Part 3: “Those who produce the material follow, often grumblingly, innumerable requirements, rules of thumb, set patterns, and mechanisms of controls which by necessity reduce to a minimum the range of any kind of artistic self-expression.” The culture industry imposes rules on creativity. These rules effectively ban certain subject matter – the taboo, anything highly sexual (but some degree of sex is still sought), and anything that might be too offensive (racial slurs, profanity, nudity). The FCC bans some of this officially on broadcast media, which results in more risqué content in films than anywhere else. Yet there are still boundaries, a sort of self-imposed censorship so that the culture industry does not offend. This allows products to be more marketable. Other restrictions are genre-based. Starting a new genre is a long shot at best, so sticking to the tried-and-true, the cliché, and the stereotypical will actually result in more success and is therefore valued in popular culture. The genre is perceived by the public as an individual’s taste, and a statement of personality, when really it is a market and a sort of cookie cutter to make products out of. An example of a formulaic product would be reality television, which follows the formulae of the genre founder, “Survivor.”

Imaginative works can only be that way without any sort of formulas, restrictions, market considerations, or monetary assessments. A true artist has a message, and the art is a way to make a statement using aesthetics. Robert Mapplethorpe’s art was freely created. His work was so controversial that there was no market to capitalize on, yet he made it anyway. He did not let cultural restrictions on what is or is not appropriate to see affect his work. He followed no conventions, which led to his unique style.

The difference between freely created art and culture industry products is that the former can teach a message, and also can be interpreted. Thought is critical when creativity is viewed. Mass culture discourages thought and invites the audience to sit back and take a break from thinking too hard.

Sources:

Theodor Adorno, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”

Theodor Adorno, “How to Look at Television”

Theresa C. Post 8

Theresa Chu

Step 1:
According to Adorno, the culture industry is extremely dangerous and stifling in that the industry tells audiences what to want and, in doing so, “put[s] an end” to creativity and novel ideas. Because “under monopoly all mass culture is identical” (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1), audiences accept what is presented to them and thus adapt their needs to the needs portrayed in the images they are seeing or in the audio they are hearing; moreover, they do not know what else there may be to desire outside of what they have seen or heard. As Adorno and Horkheimer assert, the culture industry forces the consumer to believe that what is presented to him is what he wants and “that the deception it practices is satisfaction…. He must put up with what is offered” (12). Not only is the consumer bombarded with artificial needs that are created and must be satiated by capitalism, but he is also tricked into thinking that he has the free will and the freedom to choose what he wants because of the variety of goods available to him.

Another dangerous aspect of the culture industry is that the audience is so caught up in the technicalities of advertisements and entertainment that they become blinded from questioning the systems of homogenization and commodification of culture. They take everything at face value and do not stop to consider other existing economic, social, or political interests; furthermore, those who do choose not to conform are, as Adorno and Horkheimer state, “rendered powerless, economically, and therefore spiritually” (8). If a new market does not develop for this unusual need, then this deviant is thus seen as an outcast.

Step 2:
The culture industry has indeed continued to expand. Adorno and Horkheimer write that the interest of the consumers is now placed on the “technique” of the media rather than on the “content” (9). Recently, my aunt tuned the television to a soap opera and commented that it had the same story line as well as the same characters as it did a decade ago. The only thing that had changed was the quality of the picture and the lighting. We see today in the theatres many movies being remade: The Italian Job, King Kong, Pride and Prejudice, The Manchurian Candidate, and the list continues. These exemplify how the same story is being retold with advancements in movie-making technology.

Advances in technology have also made their way into television commercials. In this clip from a Keri Lotion ad, a classic work of art becomes the centerpiece for the promotion of the product. A live woman with cracks in her skin is placed in the “painting” and is seen being transformed and renewed into “a new woman.” This clip demonstrates how the same image from the past is being used in the present to endorse a product in the new millennium.
http://www.kerilotion.com/special_offers/video2.html

Despite the fact that some would argue that the culture industry has actually weakened because of the variety of preferences, the culture industry has expanded in that it has grown to accommodate out of the ordinary tastes; for example, the clothing store Hot Topic was established as a form of countercultural rebellion. In doing so, however, the store along with the punk clothing and accessories became part of the culture industry. Essentially, there are markets in existence that cater to anyone and everyone.

Step 3:
One main difference between formulaic culture industry products and freely created artworks that Adorno emphasizes is the fact that the former is mass produced and easy to get while the latter is more difficult to acquire because it is not mass produced. Adorno and Horkheimer argue that “everything can be obtained” in the culture industry (13), and because of this, the products’ value is decreased. Dr. Musgrave’s PowerPoint also furthers this argument in that it gives mass accessibility as an example of a formal constraint on the culture industry.

In addition to being easily available to the masses, culture industry products must be easily understandable to the general public. If a television show or an advertisement is too complex, the audience will most likely feel vexed at having to actually think and analyze the content with which they are being presented. Imaginatively created art, however, serves the purpose of permitting audiences to ponder the subject rather than the object of the work of art; for example, the reason for an object being present in the art becomes more significant than the object itself.

The actual Mona Lisa painting is an imaginative work of art, for there is only one true painting created by Da Vinci himself; however, reprints of the Mona Lisa on posters and in textbooks represent a culture industry product. In this case, the painting has been degraded to something mass produced and something easily accessible to the masses. This difference was so important to Adorno because it separated free thought and creativity from ordinary everyday thinking. Adorno also believed that a Mozart concerto being played by a symphony live in a concert hall constituted it to be a freely and imaginatively created work of art; however, hearing the same Mozart concerto on the radio turns the musical masterpiece into a product of culture industry.


additional sources:
http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/op76.jpg
http://www.kerilotion.com/

Tawny N post 8

Tawny Najjar

In today’s society, it is inevitable that the public will at some time be influenced and swayed by the media. These influential entities can take the form of television shows, musical compilations, or series of paintings. As technology has advanced, there has been a growing idea of a mass media, in which art is homogenized and commodified. This mass media is quite different from the previous forms of autonomous art, yet it is slowly gaining power and influence. In his writings, Adorno denounced this mass media, stating that it is dangerous and stifling to the culture of the public. The mass media, under the disguise of innovation and advancement, has slowly been stripping away people’s ability to think for themselves and to develop their own ideas and perceptions of the world around them.

The idea of mass media relies on the concept of uniformity and repetitiveness. There are standards for what kinds of pieces of art are allowed to be viewed, as well as standards on how they are viewed. These norms come from a totalitarian point of view, attempting to eliminate all forms of free-thinking, and instead replace them with ideas and concepts that have already been thought of and processed. This leads to the media doing the thinking for the spectator, instead of allowing the viewer to look at a piece of art and make his or her own assumptions and opinions about it. In Adorno’s eyes, these representations of pre-conceived ideas are “just business made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce” (The Culture Industry 1). This “rubbish” includes the notion that spectators should not try to think outside of the box, but rather be content with the message that is blatantly stated in that media.

In Adorno’s opinion, the mass media has a negative affect on both the artist and the viewer. As the mass media continues to gain power and develop alternative ways to speak to the public, it in effect becomes closer in achieving its goal of “integration.” Mass media has always been around, but as technology advances, the ideals of conformity and conventionalism become more clear-cut and obvious. The art world now is told quite plainly what to do or not to do, concerning what issues it can present and how they are presented. There are strict rules and guidelines that artists must follow when creating their works. These rules are not physically written, but rather understood. This takes away from artists’ creativity, because they are now confined to certain standards if they want to have their work be accepted by the public. An artist can come up with their own idea of what they want to create and what message they want it to have, but they do not have complete control over their art. “Although the author’s motivations certainly enter the artifact, they are by no means all-determining as is often assumed. As soon as the artist has set himself his problem, it obtains some kind of impact of its own; and 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” (How to Look at TV 226). The artist can move in any direction he wants, but the amount of movement that he is allowed is rigidly restricted by a figurative leash. This is illustrated by Adorno’s idea that “society is always the winner, and the individual is only a puppet manipulated through social rules” (How to Look at TV 220).

The spectators are also given a false impression that they have more freedom than they really do. They are under the illusion that they have the ability to make their own decisions and have original ideas. However, the majority of the ideas or decisions that people come up with concerning art or types media most likely have already been thought of and developed. Therefore, those “original” and “imaginative” thoughts and choices are mere repeats of ideas that have already been introduced to society. As Adorno writes, “We’re right back to a chained existence of illusion and shadows” (Adorno Power Point). The mass media also influences the expectations of the spectator. Before truly listening to a piece of music or watching a film, the viewer is able to develop his or her own expectations of what that media will be like. Some one can put in a classical music CD and expect to hear soft, melodic instruments. Before hearing that specific musician, the listener is already expecting to be relaxed by the chords and pitches that are associated with that genre of music. The experiences of the spectator influence his or her expectations of art. In turn, these expectations carry through to real world situations. After watching movies and “reality” television shows, the viewer will begin to think that those situations that occur on the screen reflect exactly what happens in everyday life. Therefore, the way that those situations are dealt with during those shows are the correct way to handle some similar situation in real life. Mass media places importance on stereotypes; in shows, there is always a “good guy” and a “bad guy.” The culture industry uses these stereotypes and set frames of reference to make life seem black and white. Good is good, and bad is bad. Change is a negative thing, and sticking to ideals and morals that have long been established is a positive thing. By drilling this mentality into the spectators minds, the culture industry can keep the status quo. They develop an idea of “normalcy,” and advocate that this normal way of life is the right way in order to keep people from speaking out. As more stereotypes are developed, the spectators will come to depend on them more. These stereotypes become their safety net, something they know and recognize. They bring order, even if the message that they are sending is incorrect. In general, most people want to avoid hardships and complications as much as possible. As their experiences make their lives more complicated and “opaque,” people tend to cling to their stereotypes, the clichés, because these bring order to their lives, when nothing else seems to make sense. This may make life less complicated, but it blinds people to reality, harsh as it may be. By clinging to their stereotypes, people lose true insight into reality and lose the chance to have future experiences inspire them and change their way of thinking (How to Look at TV 230). Plato talks about this in his metaphor, Plato’s Cave. The characters trapped in the cave are brought up to see only what they are meant to see. Some one else controls what these prisoners are exposed to, therefore controlling their ideas and perceptions of reality. In the same sense, the culture industry attempts to control the spectators’ perceptions of reality. They advocate normalcy and “safe thinking,” in order to keep the viewers calm and docile. This “black and white” way of thinking not only restricts the spectators, but the artists as well. Artistic productions must deal with issues matter-of-factly instead of abstractly, and present them in terms of how they impacted the public. By taking this approach, people become “objectified,” studied for their responses to certain stimuli. The culture industry watches to see how people respond to different scenes or ideas in order to find a way to control people and bend their wills to the will of the mass media. Adorno continuously stressed in his writings that people were being used as “tools” for the culture industry, because the industry was using them to gain power and influence. By convincing people that what they really wanted was simplicity, the culture industry made them weaponless. It swayed their thinking so that they leaned more towards the realistic versions, rather than the artistic versions. Realism does not present ideas and ways of thinking that are uncomfortable and that make life more difficult for people. More importantly, it dulls their imagination and ability to think outside of the box, leaving them vulnerable to be used by the culture industry for its own gain.

Throughout the years, the culture industry has grown and expanded exponentially. When the television was first invented, there were only a few channels. Today, there are millions of channels, covering a variety of topics and reaching out to people of different interests and backgrounds. Radio stations now have different music to appeal to people’s varying tastes, and films cover every genre, from comedy to action to horror. The culture industry studied what the public liked, and then developed ways to meet those needs. Since the standards were based on the needs of the consumers, the culture industry met little resistance. This lead to an increase in manipulation and retroactive need in which “the unity of the system grew even stronger” (Culture Industry 1). In addition, as the technology advanced, the new inventions continuously took away the people’s ability to think for themselves, because they became steadily reliant on that source to provide for their needs and to give them the information that they required. This became a chain effect, because as more people became dependant on a certain technology, such as television, others too were required to conform in order to be able to relate to those people who had already become dependant on that source. If one person was watching a reality television show and apply those stereotypes and concepts to their real life, the people around him would need to know about the thing that was inspiring him. This would lead to them being exposed to that mass media. As Adorno stated, “the man of leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him” (Culture Industry 1).

The ways that the culture industry developed their products differ greatly from free and imaginative art. In the mass media, there is a demand for perfection. The consumers want reliable information and have a “desire for ‘services’” (How to Look at TV 217). The products are aimed at a “disillusioned, alert, and hard-boiled audience” who expect up-to-date, “realistic” media. By doing so, “the accents on inwardness, inner conflicts, and psychological ambivalence…have given way to complete externalization and consequently to an entirely unproblematic, cliché-like characterization” (How to Look at TV 217). The products of the mass media aim at “producing or reproducing the very smugness, intellectual passivity, and gullibility that seem to fit in with totalitarian creeds” (How to Look at TV 222). These products are rules by strict standards and rules, concerning how the products are made and what message they are sending. They must first be easily accessible to the masses in order to make a profit. Mass media is developed by a group rather than an individual to ensure efficient production. It must have normalized themes, literal meanings, identifiable genres, standard stories and plots, and predictability for the consumers (Adorno Power Point). However, in this time of efficient production, producers do not have as much time to put into developing well-thought out scripts and ideas. They instead follow a certain formula to make the process quicker. This concept of using formulas extends to television, musical performances, and plays as well. For these, there is a certain time frame that is allowed, so producers use formulas to fit their work into the allotted time frame. The mass media is very formulaic and dry, feeding on efficiency and reality, rather than creativity and intrigue.

The mass media wanted to appeal to the general public. This poster of Cinderella displays the clichés that people are so willing to embrace. The message that it sends is: “good,” beautiful people are one day rewarded. It is the typical rags to riches story, a story that everyone secretly wishes will happen to them someday. The Disney film Cinderella was widely produced, and viewed by millions of people. It was not controversial, and had the stereotypes of the hero, heroine, and villain. The heroes were always depicted as beautiful and pure, while the villain was ugly. There were no controversial issues, but rather watered-down, cliché themes, such as “follow your dreams” or “listen to your heart.” This film was one of the millions of examples of mass media that fulfilled the audience’s need for a simple, pure story, instead of a controversial, “in-your-face” story.

In freely and imaginatively created arts, the artwork does not aim to serve some purpose or fulfill the public’s need. Its sole purpose is to be an outlet for the artist, and means for him to channel his emotions and ideas. Art can have certain meanings and messages, but they are interwoven into the painting, rather than blatantly stated in mass media. Instead of being literal and realistic, autonomous art can be figurative, multifaceted, and imaginative, bringing forth new ideas and relations (Adorno Power Point). This kind of art is about expression and looking within to find meaning, rather than having some one else tell you what to think or see. It leaves room for spontaneity and soul-searching, allowing the viewer to think outside of the box and leave the realism of the world to enter into some unknown dimension, where the only things there are the viewer’s thoughts and dreams. Art lets the viewer daydream and have ambitions; it does not gloss over the flaws in society, but rather brings them to light. It encourages the public to challenge popular belief and to expand its way of thinking and viewing life.

In this painting by Pablo Picasso, there is no obvious meaning, nor any easy explanation of the content. Garcon a la Pipe (2004) displays the artist’s freedom of expression. Picasso painted, not to appeal to the public, but to show his emotions and thoughts. The content of this painting is not necessarily pleasing to the masses, but that was not his intention. His intention was to make people think, to force them outside of their safety net into the harsh reality of exposing themselves to some new idea. Picasso’s works made many viewers feel uncomfortable because they did not fit into a defined, “normal” genre of art. That was Picasso’s very intention.

Adorno saw the Culture Industry’s use of mass media as detrimental and dangerous to people. It took advantage of their gullibility and need for normalcy, and used their reactions as a means to advance itself. Mass media is the opposite of creative art, because it avoids controversy and uses formulas to find a way to appeal to a large scale of people. Art is not meant to appeal to the public’s needs, but rather to express the artist’s emotions and views. Mass media avoided producing things that made people think, and instead tried to control their thoughts to make them docile.

http://mariaflorea.blogspot.com/2007/07/perfect-weekend-destination.html

http://www.pet-portraitartist.com/old-masters/artists/Pablo-Picasso.htm