Ashley C. Post 8

Ashley Cannaday

Adorno coined the idea of the culture industry, which is his view of the mass media. To him, culture in capitalist society was uniform and identical, although it tries to appear otherwise. This culture is formulaic and has to adhere to certain criteria. Authoritarian regimes dictated culture, imposed top-down, causing it to lose the freedom to think and create imaginatively, as is seen in Hitler’s Great German Art Exhibit. Unlike totalitarian regimes, Adorno argues, this canned culture is established implicitly in the United States. The culture industry is so readily accepted because it was initially based on consumers’ needs. This has lead to a “circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger” (Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment). The consumers are forced to accept films, television shows, and radio broadcasts that are all exactly the same. Since “one branch of art follows the same formula as one with a very different medium and content,” Adorno claims, “the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.” There are only slight differentiations to accommodate the different categories of consumers. For example, there are different genres of music, but the same rules apply. “Something is provided for all so that none may escape.” The details of the product are interchangeable, “ready-made clichés to be slotted in anywhere.” There is minimal thought involved on the consumer’s part. The culture industry gives the illusion of freedom and creativity, but the reality is that creativity is stifled. The culture industry is said to have a “capitalist/consumer gaze”, where products are simply created for profit, advertisements, trends, and fads.

1) One of the consequences of the culture industry that Adorno found most dangerous was its effects on politics. The products of the culture industry are standardized, interchangeable, and formulaic. Instead of the promised freedom, creativity, and imagination as an escape from the mundane, the same cookie-cutter, pre-fab products are produced, and we as the consumers have learned to blindly accept this canned-culture that is fed to us. There is no imagination in any of the products. There is no thinking outside of the box. Under the control of the culture industry, there is no questioning of the status quo. There is simply acceptance of the way things are. Adorno feared that “the ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politics.” Instead of finding new political ideas and solutions, we will simply accept the status quo for what its worth. Indeed, I believe that Adorno’s fears have become a reality. American politics gives us the illusion of a choice between two political ideals, that of Democrats and Republicans. In reality, these parties are very standardized, centrist, and middle-of-the-road in their ideals. They differ only in minor details. Both, however, support democracy and capitalism. Any candidate that would sway from this centrist position is automatically deemed radical, and given no chance to succeed in elections. Instead of accepting these candidates with unique and innovative ideas on how to run our country, we discredit them, because they do not adhere to the traditional political ideas. Americans constantly complain about the way the country is run, yet are unwilling to deviate from the political norm.

Another thing that Adorno found stifling about the culture industry is that it promotes a hierarchal society. “Everybody must behave in accordance with his previously determined and indexed level, and choose the category of mass product turned out for his type” (Adorno, Dialect). There are preconceived notions as to the kinds of art that certain social classes enjoy, or can afford. For example, you would expect a red-neck farmer who lives in the south to listen to country music, and you would assume that he has no appreciation for rap. On the other hand, a rich heiress, adhering to the cultural hierarchy, should listen to classical music, abhor rap music, and have her walls lined with high art, because she has the money to do so.

2) Adorno argues that the culture industry has continued, and even expanded, because of new technology. Today, the products of the culture industry have become closely linked with advertisements. The average American sees thousand of advertisements per day, thanks to the advent of television and the internet. The products of the culture industry, and hence to status quo, are being endorsed everywhere you turn. You can’t escape it. "It has made the technology of the culture industry no more than the achievement of standardisation and mass production" (Adorno, Dialect).

By its very nature, the culture industry is inherently continued. It is true that there are culture movements that go against the norms, challenge the current status of culture, and break loose of traditional confinements put in place by the culture industry. Such an example can be seen in most Modernist art. Modern Art gained a huge backing and became very popular despite its divergence from the typical products. However, it was not long before the culture industry seized up its competition and transformed it into exactly the thing which it had opposed. Works by artists such as Van Gogh and Picasso were soon commodified. You can find Starry Night on almost anything imaginable, including umbrellas, mouse pads, t-shirts, hand bags, stationary, and even arm warmers. This imaginative and unique art became common and everyday, and thus part of the culture industry which it had previously opposed. This seems to be an almost inevitable, never-ending cycle that ensures the continuation of the culture industry, since any opponents of the industry are soon merged into it, eliminating all competition.

Picasso Guernica
Source: www.artstor.org

3) Adorno claimed that feely and imaginatively created art works could speak back and question the status quo. It is truly autonomous art, meaning that it isn’t automatically in the service of anything. Autonomous art does not have to be an advertisement. It could really be art for arts sake, to be appreciated on its own terms. Imagination could run wild, allowing the thought of new worlds and ideas that were truly innovative. This art wasn’t as linear as that produced by the culture industry. It could be more two dimensional, ambiguous, and metaphorical, allowing the viewer to engage with and interpret the work instead of simply being forced to accept it as is. Adorno revered Modern Art as truly autonomous art. He would say that Picasso’s Guernica is a prime example of freely and imaginatively created artwork. Especially in Adorno’s time period, this style of painting went completely against the norm. It is innovative, unique, and truly imaginative. Also, in Guernica Picasso is making an anti-violence message. At first, his intention was to depict a bullfight. However, after the Spanish bombings in Guernica, it was altered to depict this turbulent scene. Picasso’s painting challenged the political and ideological beliefs of the Spanish elite during the time period. Adorno would commend this art because it challenged the status quo of the time.

7th Heaven DVD Cover
www.mychurch.org/store/link.php?id=B0006U3SX0

Unlike autonomous art, the products of the culture industry only deceived the consumers into thinking that it was imaginative and innovative. In reality, it was a never ending cycle of products that, in essence, had the same formal components, but interchanged the minute details for the appearance of ingenuity. The metaphor of “canned culture” works perfectly here. The consumers believe they are getting something unique and different because the wrappers on the outside of the cans appear different. However, upon opening the can and tasting what is inside, it is clear that the product is the same thing that one has been digesting all along, despite the initial creative appearance.

Despite the claims of the culture industry that it brings the consumer an avenue of escape from the mundane, offering imaginative worlds and things you’ve never seen before, its products usually adhere to quite a few formal constraints. Some of these constraints included the money needed to create the product, the length or time requirements, and the big name stars that must appear in order to make the product successful. Art, television, film, and music must not only be readily accessible to the masses, but the consumers must in some way be able to identify with the product, whereas autonomous art did not need to be identifiable to the average American. For this reason, the culture industry had to make products with very literal meanings. The viewer was not expected to contemplate the art, or look for any underlying message. They were only to absorb the face value conveyed. The themes of these products also had to be normalized and standardized. For example, after-school television specials such as 7^th Heaven, portray a normal American family going through their everyday lives. In each episode, there is always some conflict or problem to overcome that the viewer can relate to, and it is no surprise to anyone that by the end of the episode the conflict is resolved, while giving the viewer a valuable life lesson. The viewer did not expect the formulized structure of the show to change from episode to episode, and as such it never did.

Picasso Guernica Money Clip being actioned on Ebay
Source

Adorno thought the difference mattered so much because these two spheres, that of the autonomous, imaginative art and that of the culture industry product, were being forced together. The line between high art and low art had been smudged. This can be seen in the fact that previously autonomous works have become commodified. The high art embodies the low art. For example, Picasso’s Guernica has been replicated in various forms and has become a commodity for the average American, along with many of his other paintings. All one needs to do is type “Guernica” in the search bar at Ebay, and you will come across a plethora of everyday items with Picasso’s painting plastered upon them. These range from coffee mugs to cheap poster replicas to money clips. The increased proliferation of this previously unique and imaginative work of art has in effect made it common and ordinary, and thus part of the culture industry. It is a never-ending cycle in which the culture industry is guaranteed preservation. A "circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger" (Adorno, Dialect).

Ruth D. Post 8

Ruth Ellen Day

Step 1:

Adorno saw the homogenization and commodification of culture as a threat to the individual and free thought. “It impedes the development of autonomous, independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves,” (CI). Culture had once been a medium for free expression of an individual’s ideas. Now, because of inventions such as film, radio, and television, culture was becoming just another commodity. Its purpose was to sell itself to the masses, not express the ideas of the individual. Because of this switch in the role of culture, it became a tool with which to control the people. It divided the population into distinct groups. People within these groups were expected to have the same artistic likes and dislikes as others within their groups. People are no longer seen as individuals but instead as a part of their groups. They are expected to conform to a certain stereotype. The culture industry does an individual’s thinking for him, “…industry robs the individual of his function. Its prime service to the customer is to do his schematizing for him,” (The Culture Industry). People no longer think for themselves. Most simply look and what industry offers them through television, radio, and film and then decides which of the presented stereotypes they want to fit into. He sees things as he is told they should be seen. “There is nothing left for the consumer to classify. Producers have done it for him,” (CI). The danger in all this is the demise of individual thought and of true art. People who are out to create something rarely create something genuinely new. They must adhere to certain formulas so that their work will sell. That is all the culture industry in interested in: how well a work will sell. It does not care about individual thought and expression. A chief example of this is television, where many of today’s stereotypes come from, “Also, the technology of television production makes stereotype almost inevitable. The short time available for the preparation of scripts and the vast material continuously to be produced call for certain formulas,” (TV). Such formulas have made their way into literature and film as well. Authors are no longer allowed to create freely. Instead they must adhere to certain formulas and guidelines so that those in charge of the industry will feel confident that the work will sell. These producers are afraid to take risks. This aversion to risk-taking and wide adherence to formulas causes individual thought to be pushed to the side as uniformity to pulled forward. This is done with the public being none the wiser. Such inventions such as television, film, and radio give the guise of being mediums of free though but instead only further ideas of stereotypes and conformity. This is the danger that Adorno sees in the homogenization and commodification of culture.

Step 2:

Some argue that culture has become less uniform since the advent of the internet. Others argue that the culture industry has merely continued and expanded exponentially. There is much to be said for the second claim. First, nearly every American watches television and movies. These mediums further the idea of categorizing people into certain rigid stereotypes. These ideas are engraved even further into people’s minds through the internet. Users of the internet get their ideas of how the world works from television and the movies and then interact in what is portrayed as acceptable while on the internet and creating their own web pages. Such stereotypes are seen most often as high school students try to classify themselves and others. They are either preps, goths, jocks, nerds, etc. Such stereotypes originate from the culture industry. Television and movies portray high school students as being segregated into these distinct groups. Even those considered abnormal are given their own stereotype in which other weird people like them are supposed to fit into as well (such as goths and nerds). Second, while is school, people start to learn the formulas for creating “good” art from a young age. In English classes, one is taught a formula for creating a work of short fiction. It must have a beginning, a middle, and an end. It must have a climax and revolution. All works of fiction both past and present are somehow fit into this model, whether they were meant to or not. These formulas that young people learn become ingrained in their minds and when they create stories of their own, they will follow this pattern whether consciously or unconsciously. For this reason, all movies, television shows, and novels end up following this pattern. New ideas may be brought forward but always within the same formula. “The constant pressure to produce new effects (which must conform to the old pattern) serves merely as another rule to increase the power of the conventions when any single effect threatens to slip through the net,” (CI). The fact that stereotypes or even more widely used than during the time of Adorno and the fact the formulas for creating “creative” works are evidence that the culture industry has merely continued and expanded exponentially as opposed to the claim that culture has become less uniform since the advent of the internet.

Step 3

The difference Adorno saw between culture industry products built according to specs of some target audience and freely and imaginatively created art is that the former is made for a profit whereas the latter is made only for the personal enjoyment of the artist. Nowadays, artists have to create something that will make the expert or producer believe that it will make him money. They have to create for this person and not for themselves. Before the take over by the culture industry, artists were free to create what they wanted, not what everyone else wanted. They did not create for profit but for personal enjoyment and to express their individual ideas. Now, since everything is created with the hope that the vast majority of people will enjoy it, art has to be created to be politically correct and uncontroversial. An artist cannot touch on uncomfortable topics but must stick to those which the masses are comfortable. My example of art that is freely and imaginatively created is Vincent Van Gogh’s “Starry Night”. This piece was created before the take over by the culture industry; therefore Van Gogh was not pressure to create something for a profit. His art came entirely from his own mind to make a statement that was completely his own and unique. His art was not realistic and did not adhere to any preconceived formulas. He didn’t care about pushing anyone’s buttons by touching on controversial subjects and creating fantastical worlds with his art. My example if a culture industry product built according to specs of some target audience is the television show “Two and a Half Men”. This show conforms to what the general public, especially men, is supposed to find entertainment. Most of the jokes in the sitcom have a crude and sexual nature, which is a way of conforming to the idea that sex sells. All of actors and actresses are relatively good looking and the show focuses on their romantic and sexual relationships with one another. This show conforms to the same formula as many television sitcoms and shows in general. This show was not made to express the views of any one individual but was instead created by a group of people to please the masses and make a profit. That is the central difference between culture industry products and art that is freely and imaginatively created. Free art is created by an individual for the individual. Culture industry products are made by a group of people for the masses in order to make a profit.

sources:

http://www.oes.org/page2/7194~Starry_Night-Vincent_vanGogh_Starry_Starry_Night_Don_McLean.html

http://www.tesco.com/entertainment/product.aspx?R=648525

Brynne post 8

Brynne Piotrowski

Step 1
In concluding his 1975 article “Culture Industry Reconsidered” Theodor Adorno summarizes his view of the culture industry by saying, “The power of the culture industry’s ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness”(4). This statement is the crux of what Adorno sees as dangerous and stifling about the homogenization and commodification of culture.

Adorno sees a particular problem in the tendency of the culture industry to operate on a superficial level and to cause its participants (anyone who “partakes” of modern culture) to become inclined to live on this same shallow plane. He is incensed by not only the superficiality of the culture industry, but also by its concurrent false premises; “The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises,” states Adorno (The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception 10). Later in the same essay, Adorno claims that even when the culture industry does deliver, the consumer does not often realize the “impotence and untruth of the messages it [the culture industry] conveys.”

A final danger Adorno sees in the homogenization and commodification of culture is the loss of the individual. To Adorno, this is both a cause and effect of the stifling of creativity and the creation of an actual culture “industry.” Adorno says the term industry “refers to the standardization of the thing itself...” (Culture Industry Reconsidered 2) and it is this industry that “impedes the development of autonomous, independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves” (Culture Industry Reconsidered 5). Using the logic that such individuals are “the precondition for a democratic society,” Adorno thereby argues that the homogenization of culture constitutes a threat to democracy. Commodification poses a potent risk because (as Dr. Musgrave’s PowerPoint presentation discusses) within the “instrumental rationality” of the culture industry, the human being is transformed from an individual into an instrument. Conformity becomes the only acceptable option and creativity is stifled, as Adorno states in How to Look at Television with his observation that “The ideals of conformity and conventionalism…have been translated into rather clear-cut prescriptions of what to do and what not to do” (220).

Adorno sees significant dangers in the homogenization and commodification of culture because it operates on a superficial level that reduces the individual to an instrument. He carries his fears a step further to claim that these effects of the culture industry can even pose a risk to a democratic society. To Adorno, these cultural phenomena run counter to the values of individuality and creativity that he reveres.


Step 2
The culture industry appears to be self-promoting and self-propagating. The evidence to support the claim that is has continued and expanded exponentially since the time of Adorno’s writings (approximately 60 years ago for his first publication) is virtually innumerable. Prime support for this claim is the expansion of television news networks. No longer do ABC, NBC, and CBS dominate the field. These so-called “big three” now face competition from other networks such as FOX and CNN and their countermove is to themselves expand (CNBC, MSNBC, ABC Family Channel, etc.).

In How to Look at Television, Adorno notes how “popular culture is no longer confined to certain forms such as novels or dance music, but has seized all media or artistic expression….Their output has increased to such an extent that it is almost impossible for anyone to dodge them” (215). Adorno has a very potent argument—satellites provide viewers with thousands of television channels, hundreds of radio stations are available through this technology as well. Megaplex movie theaters frequently have 16 or more screens and still are not able to show all the films produced for a given viewing period. Printed periodicals infuse the public with not just news but also with culture; indeed, there are entire publications devoted to modern culture, style, trends, etc. Furthermore, these cultural mediums are complemented (or perhaps trumped) by that one unique technological phenomenon—you knew it was coming—the internet.

One last piece of evidence of the continuation and expansion of the culture industry is the integration of various forms of media. The aforementioned mediums of relaying culture (television, radio, movies, etc.) often carry their impact over to the internet to increase the number of people they reach. A specific example would be the much-hyped “YouTube” debates hosted by CNN for the upcoming 2008 presidential election. These involved professional television, an internet site, and amateur videos—all of which not only contributed their unique cultural elements, but also combined to host a debate (an important part of the culture industry in and of itself). Adorno appears to take a hostile tone when observing how, “The more inarticulate and diffuse the audience of modern mass media seems to be, the more mass media tend to achieve their ‘integration’” (How to Look at Television, 220). Regardless of his wariness, there is irrefutable evidence that the culture industry (and therefore mass media) have continued and expanded exponentially, thereby broadening its audience. It is doubtful that this pattern will reverse in the near future; rather, current trends seem likely to continue and further the propagation of the culture industry.


Step 3
I think two ideal examples of a formulaic culture industry product built to target a specific audience are movies on the Lifetime Network and sitcoms geared toward women, such as Golden Girls or Designing Women. “Lifetime” movies must fit a specific time allotment and tend to incorporate certain elements such as suspense, love, lust, secrets, and relationship issues, among other factors. Likewise, sitcoms geared toward women have their own requirements. They must be relatively concise, often have women in the leading role(s), deal with relationship or “guy” problems, and provide comic relief in the interactions between the girl(s) and their friends. On the other side of the spectrum are freely and imaginatively created art works. Abstract Expressionist pieces—such as those by Pollock, Rothko, or de Kooning—illustrate the idea (at least in the sense of principles) of works created without a prefabricated framework. As a specific instance, Pollock’s paintings demonstrate this freedom and imagination in both the large size of many of his canvases and his innovative drip-painting technique.

Adorno saw personal creativity as the difference between formulaic culture industry products built according to specs of some target audience and freely and imaginatively created art works. It is the presence of an artist’s or individual’s intentions or self-expression that delineates between these two areas. In How to Look at Television Adorno explained the creation of formulated cultural products: “the total setup here [mass media production, in this particular instance] tends to limit the chances of the artists’ projections utterly. 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” (226). As such, the difference between the cultural products created specifically for consumption by a certain audience and those produced freely and imaginatively is evident not only in the end result, but in the very act of production.

Adorno was concerned about this difference because it contributes to the homogenization of culture. As I previously noted, Adorno stated that “The power of the culture industry’s ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness” (Culture Industry Reconsidered 4). He is concerned that conformity in culture (i.e. products built according to a specific framework for a particular audience) will lead to conformity in individual participants in culture. The resultant conformity of the population will only serve to heighten the call for “acceptably conformed” cultural products and the cycle will continue round and round with the homogenization of both the culture and the individuals ever increasing.

Christopher Post 8

Christopher McCauley

1. In 1944, Theodor Adorno said, “…culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.” I think this is a very simple way to describe Adorno’s philosophy about the danger caused by the homogenization and commodification of culture. If culture is going to have the same effect on everything, than why is it important? Also, what is the purpose of culture, if it is going to do the same thing every time? Culture is important to society and to the whole world because culture is what creates diversity among people and different societies. Adorno feels that we have a “cookie cutter” culture. “There is nothing left for the consumer to classify.” Everything, according to Adorno, has been molded into categories, and is created for the consumer and for mass production. “Art for the masses,” has come to ruin the point of art, since it is created in large quantities to satisfy large quantities of people.

Commodification of culture has caused a lack of new thought to occur. With the development of the culture industry, technicalities and other details have become more important than a work of art in which these are a part (the part is more important than the whole, perhaps?). Visual art (painting, photography), music, writing, and all other forms of art and expression have become commercialized to appeal to great amounts of people, and make people agree with the message trying to be addressed. This perhaps sounds slightly communist in a way, and this is why Adorno was unhappy with the way culture was and is evolving. Another point that Adorno makes is that “real life is becoming indistinguishable from movies.” Films have tended to almost reduce the imagination of it’s viewers, and caused them to think that they are more realistic than they are. They “equate [movies] directly with reality.”

“The public is catered for with a hierarchical range of mass-produced products of varying quality, thus advancing the rule of complete quantification…Consumers appear as statistics on research organization charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique is that used for any type of propaganda.” Commercial art continues to effect culture more than regular art has. More people would identify the Starbucks logo of a mermaid, rather than a painting of one by John William Waterhouse. Above, these two images appear, along with a third, which expresses the discontent that Adorno had with the fact that culture has been engulfed by mass-produced, consumer driven artwork, advertisements, and logos.

2. Another argument about culture is that is has only grown and expanded exponentially. Adorno believes that the expansion of culture through mass produced media, films, television, etc. is bad, but this could be looked at as very good. This is the way culture has evolved through the ages, and it seems to be working well for people. The culture industry is huge, with many job opportunities, and infinite amounts of capital involved. “The might of industrial society is lodged in men’s minds.” This is the direction of our culture, and where it will continue to grow. This is a good occurrence because it shows growth, change, and expansion. Things can not remain the same forever, nor can old ideas, opinions, and practices. One might argue that Adorno was very old fashioned, and was stuck in the past.
3. “The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it. If one branch of art follows the same formula as one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends of the scale of musical experience – real jazz or a cheap imitation; or if a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled in a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.” —Adorno, 1944

Adorno certainly preferred freely and imaginatively created art works, over formulaic culture products. As he said in the quote above, the latter is just “hot air.” These culture industry products are built to cater to an audience—this is why Adorno does not like it. They are mass produced; they do not show individuality. An example would be the Starbucks logo above. Adorno did not believe that culture should evolve in to huge collaborations, advertisements and media images. He would certainly not approve of the Geico cave-men on television commercials, and he certainly would not approve of the newly created television series featuring these cavemen. Freely and imaginatively created art works leave room for individual thought, interpretation, and expression. Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night (1889), would be a perfect example of a piece of art that Adorno would like, and see as good for our culture, because it portrays a realistic scene, in an unrealistic way. “Culture in the true sense, did not simply accommodate itself to human beings; but it always simultaneously raised a protest against the petrified relations under which they lived, thereby honoring them.” Culture should honor human beings and society, it should not be an easy thing for humans to abuse and contaminate.

Sources:

http://code0range.net/node/997 (culture whore logo)

http://www.northwestern.edu/nucuisine/images/newsletter/Starbucks-logo.gif (starbucks logo)

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268054 (mermaid painting)

http://www.rcs.k12.va.us/csjh/06_07_web/jordanP/jordan2.htm (stary night)

Amanda D. Post # 8

Amanda Dhillon

1. The danger that Adorno seems to find with the increased homogenization of the “culture industry” is the consequential lack of individuality and creativity in art and in the society that views it, as well as the diminished value of art due to the growth of commercialized mass culture. Concerning fine art/ the arts, the increasing mass culture industry causes a deprecation of value and imagination in art pieces as “traces of commercialism” appear “at the expense of the meaningfulness of the work” (Adorno 214). The culture industry establishes a homogenized, structured pattern of requirements for a work to have in order for it to be widely well-accepted. For example, in order for a Hollywood film to be successful, it should have an identifiable protagonist as well as antagonist, and despite how cunning or resourceful the oppressor is, the protagonist should end up as the heroic savior after struggling through the obstacles (not to dangerous or complex, mind you, as everyone should be able to follow the plot), and the outcome should be happy, thus causing all “tension” to be “superficially maintained” and therefore lose its influence (Adorno 216). People begin to expect everything before it happens. It is this homogenization that Adorno recognizes as a problem because it takes the true creativity and ingenuity/imagination out of a piece of art so that it caters to the mass audience. And sub-sequentially, the audience becomes less individual in turn. The “output [of popular culture products] has increased to such an extent that it is almost impossible for anyone to dodge them,” (Adorno 215) causing “automatized reactions” which “weaken the forces of individual resistance” (Adorno 216). People feed into and want more and more of this manufactured, “culture industry” produced art because it is easy and pleasant, which simultaneously, as Adorno feared, results in “intellectual effort” that is “lowered” (Adorno 218) across the middle classes that then become the mass audiences. This growing lack of creativity and subsequent deprecation of the value of art as is becomes sucked into the homogenized mass culture is the most stifling problem with the expanding culture industry. Not to mention, the effects are also felt in fine art, where the value of art is diminished. People can no longer understand the “hidden message” (Adorno 219) of the pieces because of the changing values because of the emphasis that is drawn to the very overt and shallow messages of popular culture “art”/ commodities, which promote the values given to the audience-consumers by the industry and that they take to be true as it is shown to them. Due to this integrated thinking, the value of art that questions values or raises new ideas falls as people do not receive it as well as they do their mass produced art. This kind of homogenized thought and behavior is characteristic of “a totalitarian nature” (Adorno 222), which would be dangerous to any society that considers itself democratic, and since the culture industry creates this, its growth and expansion is problematic. On a less macro scale, these popular culture standards create and foster stereotypes in society. As the culture products become more and more fitted to the regulations and requirements set by the audience and the producer, everyone begins to expect what happens next: certain stimuli create a mental response that when A happens, the B will always follow, and the stereotype is created and reinforced. Because this thought process becomes so ingrained the viewers, the danger is that they may come to expect that there are no real surprises in reality, either, and that if A happens, the result will always be B, or that people who do C are all D’s (Adorno 229-234). Because of these effects on the people and on the arts, then, the increase of the homogenized culture industry can be quite stifling and potentially dangerous to society.
2. It would seem that with the advent of new technologies and consumer groups, the culture industry has continued to grow. There is more homogenization and commercialization in popular culture than before, and more and more of these popular culture products are being created to appeal to specific target audiences. For example, so many new bands continue to appear all over the popular music scene, and most of them are tailored to fit in with and appeal to a given type of consumer audience. They are made to dress considerably similarly and sound almost the same; many of these are being molded into what will fit into one of the currently most popular genres, “alternative” rock, in hopes that they will be taken up by the growing target audience that listens to this particular style of music. Also, new technologies attribute to the growing culture industry. EBay and other online stores now have programs that remember what a costumer last purchased and will bring up several similar items the next time he or she logs onto the site. Similarly, Google Video will make recommendations for a viewer based on the types of online movie clips he or she watched the last time he or she visited. This increased effort to reach the consumer and tempt him or her to purchase more and more shows an increase in the reach of the culture industry. It is tailoring itself toward more numerous and specific consumer groups in the hope of expanding profits and simultaneously providing for more thorough homogenization of people and products.
3. Formulaic culture industry products are far less creatively and freely produced than a piece of fine art. In creating the culture industry product, the artist “has to follow the objective requirements of his product much more than his own urges of expression,” (Adorno 226) keeping the piece in within the confines of what the consumer-audience will want to see. There are “set patterns” in the culture industry that the artist who produces for it must keep to, patterns which “reduce to a minimum the range of any kind of artistic self-expression,” (Adorno 226) but cause a product to be successful with its target consumer group. On the other hand, art that is freely created “can never be boiled down to some unmistakable ‘message,’” (Adorno 221) but has ambiguity and imagination and even questions the traditional “messages” projected onto society by culture industry products. The “rigid,” “superimposed…layers” that make up the message in mass produced, culture industry products are much less complex and more shallow than those of “autonomous art” whose “layers are much more thoroughly fused” (Adorno 221). The difference between these two types of art seems so important to Adorno because that is what defines the difference between individuality and imagination and the mass mindset. That which is freely created is democratic, while that which is a mass-produced product of the culture industry serves only to homogenize thought and action in people and in art, creating the basic foundation of authoritarian ideology. An example of freely created and imaginative art is Pablo Picasso’s Three Musicians, which does not contain the required artistic or stylistic aspects that are pressed upon pieces made for the mass consumer-audience, but is rather created from the artists own imagination using his own style and artistic self-expression. Conversely, an example of a culture industry product would be the Fox Network’s television series House, which contains all of the elements of a program built according to the specs of a given target audience. It has moments of suspense and an intriguing sub-plot to keep people interested, likeable (or at least, interesting and sarcastically humorous) characters who do not always get along (and because of the occasional conflict created between them, one of the characters will learn a “valuable lesson”), and an ultimate conflict or problem that is finally resolved or solved by the genius Dr. House after the close-but-not-quite attempts at a solution by the foil characters, his medical team. Both of these exemplify the differences between the freely created art and that which is fashioned according to specifications of a mass-audience.

Pablo Picasso, Three Musicians: http://www.artquotes.net/masters/picasso/picasso_3musicians.jpg

Joe K. Post 7

Joe Kelly

"Monkey see, monkey do" has been a popular argument among conservatives in American politics for quite some time now, and they've certainly been effective in convincing the public. It has gotten to the point that our cultural interests are now simply assumed by media outlets to have a significant contributing effect on our actions: after the Columbine shootings, their was an outcry against Marilyn Manson when it was found that he was a staple of the killers' CD collections; their have been a slew of violent teenage crimes attributed to the imitation of both wrestling and violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto; and of course, there were the congressional debates about NEA funding and Robert Mapplethorpe. The strength of the causal connection between what we see in popular culture and do ourselves may be debated; however, it seems to be a rather one-sided debate these days.

The growing consensus on this question certainly had an effect on the Mapplethorpe case. In fact, it would not be going too far to say that it was the central issue of the debates. The question of funding was a red herring: NEA funding constitutes a miniscule percentage of the budget, nothing at all when compared with military spending. Still, disputing the allocation of NEA funds allowed politicians to dispute what was, in reality, their central point: will the creation of this art or similar to art have a negative effect on our nation's morals? This question, itself seems to be based on the dispute over the meaning of these works.

To those who wish to ban these works, just the depiction of actions of a sexual nature serves as advocacy, or at least tacit encouragement, of the acts portrayed. To the other side of the debate, the dynamic between visual stimulus and action is not quite so simple. One may look to a wealth of historical evidence to see that not all artistic portrayal is positive. Photos of the horrors war and of poverty, for instance, rarely aim to assign positive connotations to their subjects. Even when a portrayal of circumstances is not decidedly negative, it will not have such a straightforward impact on society as many would believe.

Certainly, images have an effect on people that is more visceral, and in many ways, deeper than that created by text. Though written ideas may have a higher capacity for sophistication, people do not always grasp their abstraction in a practical sense until they see them in the concrete, with their own eyes. Images serve to do just that. However, that does not mean that their messages make such an incredibly profound connection with the minds of individuals that they are automatically accepted as fact.

Art, like other mediums, should put forth two messages. One is its essential purpose, specific to an individual work, the meaning that the artist wished to attribute to it. The other is present in all art, and that message is that its first meaning, which the artist intends to put forth, should be evaluated by the viewer, in terms of the context of the viewer's world. Often, the art aims to even challenge this context, and if it does make such an attempt, the viewer should be willing to critically evaluate that work's claims. It is, in fact, this constant evaluation of not just the art, but the world around us, that is essential; for if we are unwilling to examine the context that form our beliefs, how are we to know whether our evaluations, based on these beliefs, are correct?

kelly post 7

A relationship between art and behavior is undeniable. We interpret artwork, we are moved by artwork, and we respond to artwork. But to say that artwork affects our instinctual actions is a hard argument to make. More specifically, in this case, the argument that pornography is directly correlated with bad behavior is an even harder case to make. The Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and the Meese Commission haven’t been able to establish a relationship between pornography and social debilitation. Contrary to Christian belief, studies actually show that pornography promotes a healthy sex life: “Exposure to pornography and a healthy sex life are connected (Moretti, p.45). The sociologist Carole Vance claims that no responsible study has ever established that pornography produces violence toward women. It may incite sexual feelings toward women but as Judge Frank in the Roth decision claimed, if pornography leads to normal sex, it cannot be socially harmful because without sex the human race would disappear!” (Steiner, p. 38) To reaffirm this clause, Steiner discusses Walter Kendrick’s take on the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography’s 1970 report: “There is ‘no correlation between lewd representations and lewd acts,’ Kendrick says (pp.216-217), they ‘must also agree that there is no predictable correlation between any image and any act.” (Steiner, pg. 39)

The defense has a strong argument considering that sociologists and psychologists agree that pornography does not necessarily promote unhealthy behavior. They also have freedom of speech and expression on their side, and additionally many intellectuals interested in the arts fund exhibits similar to this one. Still, the art world and the government cannot partake in a fair fight. The government has many resources, as does the art world, but the art world gains the majority of its resources from the government. If congress were to lower the budget for the NEA, a government funded agency, then the art world would be suppressed. It is the argument that poor behavior and pornography are not linked that will most enable the art world to maintain their freedom.

Most artists use their art as a form of expression. Some of those artists consider their art as an escape. If we were to only paint the things that make us happy, the only colors we would use would be pink, yellow, and orange. Violent, in-your-face images are moving. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they move people towards violent actions. An artist might be advocating an anti-violent disposition while painting something that appears dark and evil. Interpreting art is difficult in itself. Interpreting art and then determining what the artist is attempting to advocate is again even harder. This would require research on the artist and their intentions while making their art. Very few museum-trotters go to such great lengths. Some go to see the pretty paintings. Others go to see their favorite artist. Very few research a specific artist, their intentions, and then plan to go inspect the art to see if that intention was accomplished. This activity is normally reserved for art critics. Because of this, painting a specific picture doesn’t necessarily mean one advocates that picture’s depiction. Unless the artist was to blatantly explain that, the majority of the public would overlook that advocacy: “Artistic meaning, like all meaning, is a matter of interpretation. What the prosecution did not realize is that we react to interpretation; we judge interpretations; there is no such thing as work that speaks for itself.” (Steiner, p. 33)

Visual art affects visual people much greater than textual art might. Textual art requires an imagination to create a picture in your mind. The difference is showing versus telling: visual art shows the viewer what it is attempting to convey while textual art tells the viewer what it is attempting to convey. One has to use their own imagination to paint a visual picture in their head while reading textual art. It truly depends on what type of person one is and how their brain functions best in order to determine which is more moving.