Fatema, post 8

Fatema Kermalli

1. Adorno thinks that the homogenization and commodification of culture via the culture industry stifles the imagination and liberty of the people to choose what they view and how they view it. “It impedes the development of autonomous, independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves” (CI Reconsidered). Because the people are constantly fed the “culture”, they become affected by it and begin to hold the stereotypes it creates and ideas that it promulgates as their own. “The repetitiveness, the selfsameness, and the ubiquity of modern mass culture trend to make for automatized reactions and to weaken the forces of individual resistance” (216 TV). It also “…produces a number of stereotypes” (229 TV). Individuals thus become simply the audience as opposed to people actually relating with the artwork; they stop questioning and simply accept what they are given. In essence, the effect of the homogenization of culture is, as Adorno calls it, anti-enlightenment. And the message which they are unquestioningly accepting is “…that of identification with the status quo” (220 TV)

Through the commodification of culture and art, the industry lowers it status to something that it is not necessary to contemplate seriously. As with the light music, these “commodities” are simply meant to fill time and “empty space”. Just as works of art which are shown in museums and in special frames are automatically raised in importance in the eyes of the viewer, so is this mass-produced art lowered in their gaze due to the fact that it is so readily available… and so cheap.

Also helping to create the void in individual interpretation, thought, and analysis is the actual style and medium of the new type of culture. Radios and televisions allow the audience to only listen, or view... not to take part. “The culture industry misuses its concern for the masses in order to duplicate, reinforce, and strengthen their mentality, which it presumes is given and unchangeable” (CI Reconsidered). The industry itself thus produces its own audience, meting out shows and culture overall based on its own views rather than the individual thoughts of the people. Also, in sound films, the process of thought which used to accompany such viewings has now been erased by the fast pace of action which does not allow one time for contemplation. It “leaves no room for imagination or reflection” (The CI).

Such an assault on the freedom of the individual to think for himself (and be seen as himself, rather than simply as of a set group among the masses) is seen by Adorno as being dangerous in its similarity to authoritarian regimes. As he quotes Tocqueville saying, “The ruler no longer says: You must think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do… but from this day on you are a stranger among us.” This concept of conformity is itself contrary to the ideas of liberty and individuality which provide power to the people to affect change within their societies. Forcing the people to work en masse precludes stagnancy in a society. “Conformity has replaced consciousness”, and yet, “Not to conform means to be rendered powerless” (The CI), an idea which goes against the power of the people in a democracy as opposed to an authoritarian regime.

2. The evidence for the claim that the culture industry has merely expanded till today lies in the continuation of such genres and themes as were mentioned by Adorno in his works regarding the television, movies, and music. Predictable endings still abound, and may be seen as the proof of the “formulas” of the culture industry. For example, “Chick Flicks” are always funny, romantic comedies that end happily. One knows before even watching the movie its basic storyline… only the packaging changes. The same is true with music, where certain themes in content/wording are always used within specific types of music. Also a big indicator of the continuation of this industry is the extended use of statistics in order to create works of culture (such as television shows) and tailor them to specific groups of people. Instead of being viewed individually, the potential audience is divided by race, gender, and age in order to provide the producers with an idea of the thoughts and likings of the group (which they themselves help to create).

Advertisements also continue to be used to a great degree; “Because the system obliges every product to use advertising, it has permeated the idiom –the ‘style’ – of the culture industry.” With advertising, “the object is to overpower the consumer, who is conceived as absent-minded or resistant” (The CI). This idea in itself is comparable to the way in which the other forms of formulaic “culture” stop the free thought of the audience, and convince them to like what is prescribed for their specific demographical group to like.

3. The difference that Adorno saw between freely created artworks and the formulaic culture industry products was the lack of real thought present in the latter. Whilst he acknowledges that even the artists those former types of art were not wholly free from the need to sell their works, he says that their styles spoke of a type of “negative truth”. It gave their works “that force without which life flows away unheard” (The CI). This contrasts with the formulaic styles of today which do not really speak of a truth at all. Rather than coming from within, they are dictated by external factors. For example, techniques in works of are “concerned with the internal organization of the object itself, with its inner logic. In contrast, the technique of the culture industry is, from the beginning, one of distribution and mechanical reproduction, and therefore always remains external to its object” (CI Reconsidered). Also, instead of depicting true joy or happiness, they give in to “false laughter”. “The triumph over beauty is celebrated by humor… there is laughter because there is nothing to laugh at” (The CI). In all senses, the formulaic products are simply mere imitations of the true artwork that is a result of free thoughts and feelings, and a freedom in creation. This inferiority is also proven through the fact that they are formulaic; “the inferior work has always relied on its similarity with others – on a surrogate identity” (The CI). It is not strong enough to hold up on its own.

An example of freely created art would be the work of Beethoven, as it is considered deep and thoughtful. It was original. It was not limited by time, and was created by the composer, in essence, for himself-due to his own wish to create beautiful music rather than to please others. In contrast, the rap music of today would be considered formulaic products of the culture industry. The singers and limited by time, and stereotyped… just as the audience for such types of music is stereotyped by group. The beats are similar, as are the wordings used. The content of these songs, Adorno would argue, are the same. They are only in different packages.

The difference between the freely created and formulaic works matter so much to Adorno because of the effect it has on society at large. Through the pre-packaging of culture, individuals lose a part of their own identity. The creators themselves are unable to freely express themselves fully due to restrictions put on them, and the audience does not really get to choose what they want to see or listen to, because everything is already chosen for them, and is given only a semblance of difference. There is also a lack of contemplation and thought, and a focus on conformity (without which one would be an outcast, and lose his “power” as an individual). The difference between these two is thus almost as the difference between democracy and authoritarianism through the way in which the individuality of individuals are stunted by the formulaic works.

Shea post 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amy I, post 8

Amy Iarrobino

Post 8

Step1:

Adorno summarizes his view of the dangers of homogenization of culture by the culture industry as he states that “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 forced of individual resistance” (Adorno, 216). In other words, the greatest danger about homogenization and commodification of culture is the loss of individual free thought. Such free thought is replaced by common ideals and “the curse of modern mass culture seems to be its adherence to the almost unchanged ideology of early middle-class society” (Adorno, 219). “The system’s concerted effort results in what might be called the prevailing ideology of our time” (Adorno, 215). This concept of the prevailing ideology is considered unattainable (Adorno, 219) and is similar to the sociological ideal family. For example, the ideal family is portrayed by media as the classic Leave It To Beaver bunch with an attractive white family with the father as the breadwinner, wife as the homemaker, successful children and no financial worries. However, this ideology presented and enforced by the culture industry is unattainable for most American families. These families of mass culture are “posing as realistic” (Adorno, 218) and actual Americans feel they must emulate these standards. The Americans’ inability to reach these ideals may lead to disappointment and decrease in feelings of self-worth. Thus, homogenization and commodification of culture “creates hierarchical and authoritarian social structure” (Adorno, 219) to render “clear-cut prescriptions of what to do and what not to do” (Adorno, 220) such that “the individual is only a puppet manipulated through social rules (Adorno, 220). The media dictates the ideal. In addition, the concepts portrayed by the media indeed influence the behavior of the viewers, especially children. For example, psychologist Albert Bandura conducted the Bobo Doll Experiments in which children were shown video of an actress hitting and punching an inflatable Bobo doll. Three videos were shown, in the first the actress was punished for playing violently with the doll, in the second there were no repercussions and in the third the actress was positively reinforced for her violent behavior. After viewing the designated video each child was given a Bobo doll to play with, it was found that in cases two and three the children were equally very likely to hit and punch the Bobo doll as the actress in the video did (Pastorino &Doyle-Portillo, What is Psychology?, 240). Thus, the media has a strong impact on the behavior of the viewers, reinforcing the idea that homogenization may lead to uniform behavior.

The culture industry is flawed in its capitalist/commodity gaze. For example, when creating media, the focus is on the media’s effect on the consumer. The viewer is seen as a consumer and media is a means by which the consumer can be influenced to buy a specific product for the profit of the powerful companies and organizations that control the culture industry. The name “culture industry” itself attests to its capitalist/commodity orientation. The problem occurs because the culture industry shapes the desires of the viewer (consumer) even if the viewer is unaware. The preferences that the corporations determine are imposed upon the consumer, such as the preference that boy babies like blue colors and toys such as hammers and blocks while girl babies like pink colors and toys such as dolls and Barbies. In a psychological experiment mothers were first given a baby boy to play with. The mothers reported that the baby boy “preferred” to play with the tools and blocks. However, the same baby was then dressed as a girl and the same experiment repeated, the baby supposedly “preferred” to play with the dolls. This experiment indicates the way that preferences are dictated. Advertisers use media to depict the appropriate girl and boy toys and parents reinforce these standards on their children, even during infancy. If the media already has such influence at an early age, imagine the preferences of Americans today that are constantly exposed to the culture industry.

The culture industry also imposes formal constraints on the media in everything from the length of the media, genre, participants (actors, DJs, hosts), language and age-appropriateness. Such constraints force uniformity among media and thus limit the individual expression in each form. Also, as the culture industry is controlled by the powerful organizations, media must be subject to their approval or funding will not be provided and the media will not reach mass audience to cause an affect. This process allows the “most powerful sectors of industry- steel, petroleum, electricity and chemicals” (Adorno & Horkheimer) to control what viewers are exposed to and thus their behavior. In class discussion it was mentioned that film media must have a happy ending in order to be successful. Such a claim is evident in the movie version of The Count of Monte Cristo. Unlike Dumas’ original piece, the film ended with Mercedes and Dante living happily ever after when in actuality the novel ended in tragedy.

However, exceptions must be noted. Some films have gained success despite breaking many formal constraints. An anomaly occurred in 1999 with the success of The Blair Witch Project which did not have the typical plotline and well-known actors and included widespread use of curse words.

Step 2:

The culture industry is expanding in its increased use of tactics and its widespread effects. Media advertisers use polls and sample groups to map viewer’s preferences and make generalizations about target audiences. Such data is then used to design the most effective advertisements to motivate the viewer to consume their products. For example, the adaptation to the target audience can be seen in the difference between daytime and evening television. Daytime television includes far more life insurance, denture and pharmaceutical commercials in an effort to target the elderly population. However, evening television focuses more on food, car dealerships and household appliances, topics to target the middle-aged working population.

As mentioned in class, the average person sees 3,000 advertisements per day; this number is undoubtedly an increase from the early to mid 20^th century when television, radio and film first became popularized. Today, the culture industry has even expanded to encompass the World Wide Web. How often have pop-up advertisements interrupted a web surfing session? Also, advertisements pervade websites that offer free videos and music in order to pay for the use of such works.

The culture industry has expanded to the point that it has affected the political workings of the United States. The powerful organizations backing the culture industry have a tight hold on the views of political parties. Media is most likely the most effective way for candidates to advertise for their campaign. They must please the media corporations in order to allow their advertisements to be shown. These media sources are controlled by the monopolies which thus control the candidate and subsequently the political views of the candidate’s party. If that candidate is elected, the powerful sectors of industry then control the country. This phenomenon may explain the reason why the two main political parties have many similar views and only differ on specific issues as not to create too much controversy and antagonistic feelings among the media and viewers (the American population) but especially among the industrial organizations controlling them.

Step 3:

The culture industry and imaginative art works both offer means of expression, however, the two have numerous differences. For example, culture industry has no expectations of the viewer and makes clear its purpose of promoting a specific product to a target audience. “No independent thinking must be expected from the audience” (Adorno & Horkheimer). On the other hand, the freely created art work often motivates the viewer to think and interpret the image, leaving room for much independent thinking.

Culture industry also works to promote a uniform ideal and maintain the status quo. Thus, the culture industry supports “obedience to the social hierarchy” (Adorno & Horkheimer). However, artwork maintains its ability to speak back to social problems and critique the status quo. The artwork may do this by expressing the views of a repressed people, as in the mural Guernica. Imaginative artwork may even propose other worlds. However, exceptions to the culture industry’s maintenance of the status quo in film often occur with documentaries. For example, Supersize Me challenged the fast food giants and the obesity of Americans.

In addition, “The secret of aesthetic sublimation is its representation of fulfillment as a broken promise. The culture industry does not sublimate, it represses.” As mentioned in step one, the culture industry represses the reality of the average viewer’s inability to reach fulfillment by constantly promoting the desires and ideals.

Artwork seems to be the very essence of style and aesthetics while the culture industry is “reproached for its lack of style” (Adorno & Horkheimer) due to its intense focus on product promotion. Also, while the freely created artwork is debatably considered to not be in service of a greater organization, the culture industry is a tool of these powers. Art work’s purpose is generally to stimulate thought and provoke change while the “culture industry remains the entertainment business. Its influence over the consumers is established by entertainment” (Adorno & Horkheimer).

Differences are important between art and the culture industry as Adorno believes that culture “is so blindly consumed in use that it can no longer be used” (Adorno & Horkheimer). Thus, culture as filtered by the culture industry is no longer worthwhile. However, Adorno contends that art on the other hand is far more stimulating and important to the furthering of society as culture industry “creates too much satiation and apathy” (Adorno & Horkheimer). Recognizing such difference may help viewers avoid the ensnaring of the culture industry by thinking independently in viewing art.

Art, provoking change:

This famous art work fulfills all of Adorno’s main contentions for a piece to be considered art: it critiques the status quo, provides a voice for a repressed people and proposes an imaginary world.

Culture industry, maintaining status quo:

This image works to maintain the status quo by presenting the ideal family structure of a family consisting of a husband, wife and children living in a financially well-off sized house in a suburban area. Also, notice the separation in genders which possibly emphasizes the division in the domestic sphere which is furthered by the wife holding the infant. Such portrayal reinforces the role of the wife as the child-bearer and main parent in raising the infant.

Maxine R. Post 8

Maxine Rivera

Step 1

In his readings, one of the points that Adorno emphasizes time and time again is the blind conformity produced and promoted by the mass media. In the second paragraph of The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Adorno says "Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part. Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system." This tone of this statement is obvious displeasure, if you doubt it, continuing to read will only provide confirmation of Adorno's discontentment with the way the mass media seems to be turning the people into clones. "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." (How to Look at Television, p 216)

The post question asks what Adorno thinks is dangerous/ stifling about this homogenization. The answer is in the question, what Adorno finds most dangerous about the homogenization is the fact that it is so stifling. The problem is that the mass media seems to have "standardized" everything. Popular culture has become uniform, "and the impact of popular culture upon the individual has concomitantly increased." (How to Look at Television, p 215) With the impact of popular culture being so great, and mass media circulating a uniform message is all of its forms (music, television, film, literature, etc.) the people are also becoming uniform. Free and original thought, which Adorno believes comes from introspection has "given way to complete externalization and consequently to an entirely unproblematic, cliche-like characterization." (p 217) This is the problem Adorno finds with the culture industry. It saturates the public with sameness, it controls the messages we receive and the way in which we receive them. "The control is so extensive that any infraction of its rules... has but little chance to reach the population at large." (p 215) In addition to stifling the original thought of the people, the Culture Industry tends to disregard the human aspect of the public. We begin to become a mass commodity, there is no individual value, so even if we were to have an original thought, it probably would not matter much.

Step 2

The claim that the culture industry has merely continued and expanded is proven over and over in our daily lives. Evidence of expansion is seen in the far reach of the mass media, the different forms it takes. Evidence of continuation is seen in the fact that although there are a myriad of different forms, they all resemble each other. Adorno makes this point in How to Look at Television when he says "these forms show an amazing parallelism, even when they appear to have little in common on the surface (such as jazz and a detective novel)." (p 215) In modern day media, we see the theme reoccurring, the commercials that interrupt our programs tend to resemble our programs. Although a commercial is generally 30 seconds to a minute long, most have plot lines, some form of suspension (even if only for an instant) and a generally predictable ending, just like the program it interrupts. This is exactly what Adorno is talking about when he mentions the homogenization of culture, everything looks and sounds the same. This sameness does not only take place within television (commercials and programs) it can be seen across media. A second example shows how movies, television programs, and popular songs have similar themes, story lines, and conclusions. The message is the same over and over, just delivered by different voices. Sometimes the voice is even the same (Beyonce is both a singer and actress). Adorno called this "The alliance of word, image, and music" in The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. This example shows the continuation of the culture industry in familiar forms and its expansion to all forms of media.

Another piece of evidence that demonstrates the growth of the culture industry is concept of globalization. Our brainwashed-into-uniformity culture industry is taking its influence overseas by virtue of satellites, and the Internet. Through web cams, search engines, personal pages, online advertisement, and so on, our culture industry has expanded farther than possibly even Adorno could have imagined. Now, the "people at the top" can treat not only Americans as commodities, they can treat the Europeans, and the Asians, the South Americans and the Africans that way too. From sea to shining sea no longer defines the boundaries of our culture industry.

Step 3

There is absolutely no doubt that Adorno saw a "clear cut" difference between "freely and imaginatively created works of art" and "formulaic culture industry products." In How to Look at Television Adorno says that art does not have "some unmistakable 'message'" the way popular culture does. While he admits that both have layers, he says that the layers of art "are much more thoroughly fused." (p 221) Truly autonomous art does not conform to accepted standards as culture industry products must. The powerpoint lists the number of people involved in the creation of the work as criteria in determining whether or not it is art or product. According tot he powerpoint, the more people involved, the more likely it is to be product as opposed to art. This reflects Adorno's feeling that originality in art comes from "inwardness." One who is focusing on introspection is not likely to take part in a huge collaborative effort to drain any personality from a piece. (p 217) " It is alleged that because millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods. " (The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception) Real art is not processed, it is organic.

The first image is a piece of the Sistine Chapel, painted by Michealangelo. This would be considered freely creative, autonomous art, by any standards, Adorno's included. The painting took immense skill to create and it is a well known fact that Michealangelo insisted on suffering to get the job done. The amount of interaction with the Sistine Chapel is rather large, people come from all over the world to view it, but as per the powerpoint, these pilgrimages to see the art are more like "field trips." People of course come in contact with replicas of the image all the time on mugs, shirts, umbrellas, key chains, etc. but these generally depict only a piece of the entire masterpiece. Thus interaction with the whole work is limited. On the other hand, the Disney logo (which represents Disney movies) would be considered a product of the culture industry. Disney movies are the same story told over and over with a different princess representing the damsel in distress each time. (This particularly applies to the classics, which are watered down versions of older stories, often with gruesome, unhappy endings.) These movies have been carefully processed to give specific messages to young children, the indoctrination into the culture industry clearly begins at a very young age. The movies are made with mass appeal in mind, time constraints are very important to the success of a Disney movie (generally no more than 90 minutes) and large teams are put together for production of these films. Of course there is pressure to be entertaining, even more so on films directed at young children with short attention spans, and there is a load of money to be made for select people if the product is successful in its aims (what with DVD sales, toys, clothes, bed spreads, sleeping bags, dental hygiene endorsement deals, etc.) With all of the above, Disney movies meet just about every criteria of a culture industry product. Don't misunderstand me, I love Disney movies, but I am fully aware that I fall into the trap of the culture industry when I watch them, and that if i allow my children to watch them, I will be perpetuating the cycle. In this way, the culture industry is expanded by inheritance, the people on top of these monopolies can count on parents to aid them in their efforts.

http://msopal29.myweb.uga.edu/entire%20ceiling.jpg image 1
http://static.flickr.com/98/238814340_45aa9316f5_o.png image 2

Jenn Post 8

Jenn Shea
1)
The idea of the freedom of an artist to express whatever he desires and the idea of the freedom of the spectator to find within art whatever he or she pleases has long been part of the ideology of a democratic society. However, as addressed by Adorno in “How to Look at Television,” “Although the authors’ motivations certainly enter the artifact, they are by no means so all-determining as is often assumed…in most cases, 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” (226). Art thus becomes more of a rigid and standardized commodity used to turn a profit through manipulating the “free” interpretation and speculation of viewers. In turn, this pre-determined set of guidelines established by the demands of society concerning the presentation, content, and other aspects of the art impacts the viewer by manipulating and streamlining what he or she views and additionally how he or she reacts. As Adorno notes, “commercial production of cultural goods has become streamlined, and the impact of popular culture upon the individual has concomitantly increased” (“Television” 215). Individuals, then, become less of a spectator and more of a source of industry and revenue for society as they are drawn into the pre-fabricated forms of art including but not limited to television, film, and advertisement. In such a contradictory society in which individual expression is outwardly valued by inwardly suppressed by a pre-determined mould, Adorno addresses the dangers such increasing streamlining has on spectators as well as the resulting downfall of aestheticism and free expression.

In forcing culture into a defined and rigid set of standards, artistic freedom suffers, and the freedom of the viewer is also compromised in several ways. First, the mass media or culture industry, as Adorno calls it, assumes a psychological control over the viewer and seems to impose a totalitarian ideology by dictating the standards by which a piece of art must be produced, presented, and viewed. Because of this this, Adorno observes how viewers have little room to determine their own reactions: “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” (216). Specifically speaking of television, Adorno also addresses the idea of an impassive audience vulnerable to believing whatever is presented. In doing so, he compares this with the idea of totalitarianism manipulating the individual into following the order of the state, no questions asked: “This falls in line with the suspicion widely shared, though hard to corroborate by exact data, that the majority of television shows today aim at producing or at least reproducing the very smugness, intellectual passivity, and gullibility that seem to fit in with totalitarian creeds even if the explicit surface message of the shows may be antitotalitarian” (222). In addition, Adorno speaks of the role of subliminal messages acting upon a consumer much like a totalitarian leader would use in propaganda in order to maintain order and desired behavior from individuals. He states that, “…certain political and social trends of our time, particularly those of a totalitarian nature, feed to a considerable extent on irrational and frequently unconscious motivations” (222). By taking advantage of the supposed effectiveness of tapping into the unconscious (which seems largely impossible, as we discussed in our last critical reflection), Adorno implies that culture industry uses (or more appropriately abuses) the power of the media to brainwash viewers into reacting uniformly and as expected.

In relation to this power that leads to the submissiveness of the viewer, another danger is the conformity of the individual in believing or experiencing a piece of art as everyone else does because the way in which the art was produced intended to evoke such a common and predetermined reaction, regardless of the will of the viewer to develop his or her own reaction. As the artist is forced to produce his or her work according to restrictions such as time, space, genre, target audience, etc, the viewer is forced to react in the expected way consistent with social norms. As Adorno notes, “The ideals of conformity and conventionalism were inherent in popular novels from the very beginning. Now, however, these ideals have been translated into rather clear-cut prescriptions of what to do and what not to do. The outcome of conflicts is pre-established, and all conflicts are mere sham. Society is always the winner, and the individual is only a puppet manipulated through social rules” (220). In addition, Adorno also addresses the direct manipulation and censorship of art by executives in terms of whether or not the work is consistent with the standards of the status quo: “In addition there is the agreement – or at least the determination – of all executive authorities not to produce or sanction anything that in any way differs from their own rules, their own ideas about consumers, or above all themselves” (Culture Industry 2).

Because of both the power of the media executives of the culture industry and the ways in which artists and viewers are forced to conform to the common standards of creating and viewing, an audience becomes a robot-like group incapable of an autonomous appreciation for art. These individuals also become desensitized and lethargic toward reality as they are repeatedly sold a standardized version of reality through various forms of media. Adorno notes, “Mass culture, if not sophisticated, must at least be up-to-date—that is to say, ‘realistic,’ or posing as realistic—in order to meet the expectations of a supposedly disillusioned, alert, and hard-boiled audience” (218). Because of the experience of a commodity-form of reality through forms of media, people lose sight of their own reality: “Thus, people may not only lose true insight into reality, but ultimately their very capacity for life experience may be dulled by the constant wearing of blue and pink spectacles” (Adorno 230).


2)
The mass media has continued to grow, and as a result, the culture industry has further expanded. Each year there are numerous television programs, movies, etc, and such additions have provided furhter venues that the culture industry can use to turn a profit from the production and viewer commodities. Through the continuation of movies being produced with different story lines but the same time restrictions, categorizations into genres, and structured format of beginning, middle, and end and with television shows abiding by similar restrictions and continually falling into the categories of sit-coms, soap operas, reality shows, etc, the culture industry maintains its power of standardizing what the audience is exposed to. In keeping with the tradition of the creation and presentation of various forms of media, the viewer is limited in how he or she may react, as the individual is repeatedly exposed to the essentially the same stream-lined material for which standard reactions have already been established. As Adorno notes, “Not only are the hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariablehe types, but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable. The short interval sequence which was effective in a hit song, the hero’s momentary fall from grace (which he accepts as good sport), the rough treatment which the beloved gets from the male star, the latter’s rugged defiance of the spoilt heiress, are, like all the other details, ready-made clichés to be slotted in anywhere; they never do anything more than fulfil the purpose allotted them in the overall plan. Their whole raison d’être is to confirm it by being its constituent parts” (4). In addition, more and more individuals are tuning in to television shows, radio stations, and movies as more and more are produced and are made more readily available through the expansion of the internet (youtube, online news and television stations), music technology (iTunes, iPod), and other forms of technology that facilitate mass production and broadcasting. For this reason, Adorno notes that neither the industry nor the individual could exist without the other: “The masses are not the measure but the ideology of the culture industry, even though the culture industry itself could scarcely exist without adapting to the masses” (Reconsidered).

3)
In regard to the difference between culture industry products and imaginatively created pieces of art, Adorno compared it to the difference between conformity and accessibility versus autonomy and authenticity, respectively. He saw culture industry products as standardized forms mass-produced and made easily accessible to a public whose reactions would be similarly standardized and mainstream. The products had to be more literal and more reflective of reality, which, as he noted in “The Culture Industry”, reduced the use of the imagination by the audience: “Real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies. The sound film, far surpassing the theatre of illusion, leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience, who is unable to respond within the structure of the film, yet deviate from its precise detail without losing the thread of the story; hence the film forces its victims to equate it directly with reality” (4). An example of this type of art can be seen with the Statue of Liberty. This was once recognized as a very unique and symbolic piece of art that had very significant meaning in the history of the United States. Although it continues to represents the same ideals of freedom and opportunity as it did when given as a gift from France, it has now been reproduced into almost any type of souvenir one could imagine including key chains, hats, and can be found displayed on apparel, bags, and posters, and has been replicated in miniature figurine form. Now it is possible for any individual to have some form of this piece of art. Specifically in regard to Adorno’s discussion about film and television, one can see the culture industry within any category of movie such as a romantic comedy. In any romantic comedy, the director and writer of a movie must consider time limit, incorporation of an equal balance of romance and witty comedy, incorporation of actors that will charm both sexes, a soundtrack that will remind the audience of the movie even after viewing, and many other characteristics that have been set as standards for which a film creator must consider while making a movie. The films must also in some way adapt a sense of reality.

Contrastingly, Adorno saw freely created art as having a unique quality in which the artist fell under no constraints of expression and in which a viewer was equally as free to interpret and perceive the art form as he or she pleased. He recognized this more genuine art as becoming less recognized and less frequently appreciated, while the more readily accessible mass-produced films and television and radio shows became more and more popular to the commodity-driven consumer. He noted, “Even today the culture industry dresses works of art like political slogans and forces them upon a resistant public at reduced prices; they are as accessible for public enjoyment as a park. But the disappearance of their genuine commodity character does not mean that they have been abolished in the life of a free society, but that the last defence against their reduction to culture goods has fallen” (14). An example of this would be most art found in museums that has not been reproduced for the masses from the pressures of the culture industry to turn a profit. For example, “Abstract Landscape” by Helen Frankenthaler from 1951 during the abstract expressionist movement demonstrates a free form of expression in which the artist was able to create freely without restraints from the culture industry about appealing to an audience and becoming a commodity and in which the viewer was also free to interpret the painting regardless of the standards of viewing set out by the industry. There is no direction of what to look for and no standards to go by; the freedom is given to the viewer to determine meaning. The viewer is also not used as a tool to perpetuate the culture industry, and the painting itself has intrinsic value and attracts people aesthetically rather than for the purpose of gaining influence and money.


In general, Adorno insists that individuals are being taken over by dominant influence of the culture industry. By adhering to the standards by which a piece of art must be created in order to cater to an audience, artists are allowing this power of the culture industry to perpetuate and increase, especially with more forms and venues for media being introduced. As Adorno noted, once the culture industry takes hold of a piece of art, “There is nothing left for the consumer to classify. Producers have done it for him. Art for the masses has destroyed the dream but still conforms to the tenets of that dreaming idealism which critical idealism baulked at” (4).

Aaron Post 8

Aaron Childree

In a world where everything is defined in terms of dollars and cents, we shouldn’t be surprised that what Theodor Adorno refers to as the “culture industry” has become a huge part of our lives. In this culture industry, art is no longer an intellectual experience but a means for mindless entertainment. Adorno saw the advent of this industry in particular with regards to the rise of the Hollywood film industry. There was no longer such a thing as art film, it was purely a money-making endeavor in which whatever would reach the largest audience would be produced. Adorno saw the culture industry as a huge threat to society as we know it.

The dangers of the culture industry lie in the way it attempts (for the most part successfully) to control what society thinks. In this way the culture industry is the democratic equivalent to a totalitarian regime. Adorno makes this connection through the way terminology is created and used in both the culture industry and by totalitarian rulers. He says, “The blind and rapidly spreading repetition of words with special designations links advertising with the totalitarian watchword.” (from The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception). It could be easily argued that this industry is more dangerous than a totalitarian ruler because it sneaks up on us virtually unnoticed. As Rob pointed out in class on Wednesday, many people still deny the affect that advertisement’s have on their thinking. If we don’t realize that it is affecting us, it has even more power to do so. Our thought’s are being influenced by the advertisement’s that surround us as well as all the other components of the culture industry, and many people don’t even notice.

Another danger is that human beings are no longer being treated as people to interact with and have relationships with. The danger is in the way even human beings are being commodified. We are only seen as another opportunity for the businesses that run our so-called “free” market economy to turn a profit. Humans are seen as commodities in that they compose the demographics that the businesses are trying to sell to and they are commodities in that they can provide labor for the companies. This labor is then assigned a dollar value and this dollar value is essentially seen as that person’s worth. More than ever before, people are identified by what job they have and how much money they make.

Yet another danger of this culture industry is that it discourages the use of the mind. We can now be entertained without thinking at all. In Adorno’s words, “The phrase, the world wants to be deceived, has become truer than had ever been intended” (from Culture Industry Reconsidered). We want to believe the nonsense we see on television and just live from our couches. We know we are being fed lies, but we believe it because we want to. This is why reality TV has become such a huge hit. Reality TV shows tell people what they want to hear, that life is like a TV show. The viewer knows that this isn’t true of his life, so he would rather live through his favorite television characters.

Although we are not thinking during the entertainment process, we are still being influenced in a huge way. Everything in the mass media is dumbed down to the point of being pure entertainment without any educational value of any sort. We are being conditioned to want predictable, unintelligent entertainment. This shows up in the way all our movies conform to one basic plotline. There is a comedy plotline, a drama plotline, an action movie plotline, and every movie in these genres is only a slight variation on a common theme. In order to appeal to a large audience, no risks can be taken and the pursuit of beauty must be sacrificed. People would rather hear a “catchy” song than a beautiful and lyrically complex song and the same applies to all the arts. They are only given worth according to how much money they can make in the current market. The artistic beauty of art is of no concern unless that makes people want to spend money on it. Because of this visual art is used primarily as a medium in which to promote products through advertisements, thus leading to the downfall of “high” art or “art for art’s sake”.

I t is not very difficult to see some of the ways in which the culture industry continues to expand its reach. One of the easiest ways to see this is to take a quick glance at the various mediums used for advertising. The culture industry used to stick to billboards, television, and the radio to advertise their products, but in today’s society there are no more barriers. I have seen advertisement’s on sport’s fields and on racecars, but the most telling situation I have witnessed was when I was watching a beach volleyball match on TV. The volleyball players were shirtless and had temporary tattoos of brand names on their bodies. If this doesn’t show how individuals are becoming commodities, I don’t know what does. If we are not careful, advertisements will become the only kind of art available and there will be nowhere to escape from ads.

Adorno would agree that the culture industry is expanding day by day. This is because, like a totalitarian regime, the culture industry tries to control thoughts. It brainwashes you in to believing in its product. Instead of using force, it indoctrinates you so that you come running to buy whatever is being touted as the next big thing. Adorno quotes Toqueville on this subject, “tyranny leaves the body free and directs its attack at the soul. The ruler no longer says: You must think as I do; he says: You are free not to think as I do; your life, your property, everything shall remain yours, but from this day on you are a stranger among us.” (from The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception). The culture industry is the newest form of tyranny. It appeals to people’s need to fit in, to be part of the group. Because of this need to fit in, people allow the culture industry to grow and completely buy into its ideology.

The main difference between culture industry “art” and free and imaginative art is the purpose for which the art is created. Free and imaginative art, or “high” art, is trying to enlighten the viewer to whatever ideas they are trying to portray. Culture industry art is trying to sell something to the viewer. We have talked about the phrase “art for art’s sake”, and Adorno mentions this as well. High art would be considered art for art’s sake, where as you might say that the culture industry produces art for the sake of making money. Another distinction that Adorno makes has to do with what he calls the “autonomy of works of art” (from Culture Industry Revisited). True art is autonomous and therefore independent of any outside authority. The artist as an individual is the one with the authority to freely express his ideas. In the culture industry, autonomous art does not exist. All art is either openly advocating cultural norms or being influenced by the prevailing cultural norms.

www.ragani.com

artstor.org

A perfect example of the contrast between these two styles of art can be seen in the pictures above. The first image is The Birth of Venus by Botticelli and the second is a Gucci advertisement that uses a parody of Botticelli’s painting. Botticelli painted this painting in order to show something that he thought was beautiful, but in today’s culture anything that will help you make money is fair game. Gucci took this famous painting and then added extravagant jewelry to the naked goddess in order to hopefully sell more of their products. If we are not careful, high art will cease to exist and art will only be judged according to its practical and monetary value.

Joe K Post 8

Joe Kelly

Step 1:

Adorno's main problem with the homogenization of culture seems to be that it replaces individualism. It creates a formulaic approach to expression, and forces everyone to conform to it. He also uses the term "commodification" to express a trend he sees in culture. This is reminiscent of the Marxist idea that capitalism inspires the commodification of labor. According to Adorno, culture is no longer a humanistic expression, the ends of creative thought; it has instead become a tool, the means for capital gain. The result is the homogenization, in which distributors find the most successful formula to achieve the most success, and consequently, subject (and restrict) their viewers to that singular formula.

Step 2:

The culture industry does seem to have expanded at a great rate since Adorno, especially in the last twenty or so years. In terms of homogenization, this expansion seems to have had a positive effect. In all forms of media, it seems, more cultural alternatives have opened up for people to take an interest in. For instance, the advent of the internet has diversified the music industry, as a greater variety of artists find success, though not to extreme degrees like in the past, and more television networks mean a greater variety in programming to choose from. Much of what's available still suffers from a homogenized approach, since financial backers will not lend support to what they do not expect to succeed. However, this financial backing is, in many ways, not as necessary as it once was, because the internet has made word of mouth a far more valuable tool than it has every been before.

Step 3:

The difference Adorno saw between the formulaic culture industry and the freely and imaginatively created arts is simply the freedom found in creating them. Instead of being free to create whatever they want, these artists are held to standards that executives have found maximize profits. This clearly contributes to the homogenization of culture that Adorno had despised.

An example of an artist who is bound by the culture industry would be Plies, pictured below on the cover of his album, The Real Testament.

WARNING: Extreme sarcasm ahead.

Plies, though a talented musician in his own right, has been reduced to following the same old formula of standard beats and offensive lyrics. Though a master of poetry, he must resort to lyrics such as "I taught her how to talk to me while she take pipe/And opened her up and showed her what a real nigga like" and "I know in the panty she foamin'/ I'm locked eyes on that monkey." While these clever turns of phrase certainly would have carried a level of cultural profundity several years ago, they've been cheapened by the recent exploitation of sexual themes for monetary gain. There's no telling what kind of art Plies would produce if he were left to his own devices, rather than a mere pawn of the music industry. (Alright, I'm done now.)

In contrast, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon was created on artistic creativity alone. It was truly a unique creation that had a profound effect on music for decades to come. Instead of maintaining homogeneity, as Plies so begrudgingly does (alright, I'm really done now, I promise), they broke the mold.