2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

“Donald Duck in the cartoons and the unfortunate in real life get their thrashing so that the audience can learn to take their own punishment,� says Adorno in the midst of his bitter and brilliant tirade against pop culture. It’s apparent that the writer is overcome with despair and contempt, sentiments which must be connected to his position as a political and cultural outcast. Having watched his homeland fall prey to Nazi fascism, Adorno ends up in the superficial Technicolor playground of Los Angeles, an environment equally alien to his socialist ideals. Perhaps some of Adorno’s most interesting insights are those which identify parallels between the mass communication techniques of wartime Germany and Hollywood. “Consumers appear as statistics on research organization charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique that is used for any type of propaganda.�

Much of this essay boils down to a description of the production and distribution methodology of corporate pop-culture. There’s a lot to debate within his analysis of ‘style’ and the way that mass-production of stylistically consistent cultural content has eliminated or perverted ‘true’ culture. It’s an annoyingly elitist assertion. Furthermore, in creating a dichotomy between mass culture and the avant garde that resists it, he ignores the existence of grassroots folk cultures which exist outside of both mass production and high-culture legitimacy. Of course, producers of such folk culture are often appropriated by the pop-culture industry (jazz is a perfect example.) However, to overlook the origins of such folk cultures is to ignore the complicated dialog that exists between subculture, industry, and academy. In other words, popular culture cannot be understood simply as a from-the-top-down unidirectional message; when Adorno says “Anyone [in the entertainment industry] who resists can only survive by fitting in,� he’s overlooking the voracious flexibility of an industry intent on marketing rebelliousness itself.

For all Adorno’s complaining about the rise of monoculture (and monopolistic mass culture is a reality, if not in exactly the form that he imagined) I’m more interested in his suggestions about the ways that formal deviations or innovations can actually strengthen the status quo: “…departures from the norm are regarded as calculated mutations which serve all the more strongly to confirm the validity of the system.� In today’s world of internet-fueled media diversity, it might be more accurate to say that departures from the norm ensure that the widest possible cross-section of consumers can be satisfied.

This essay is a brilliant account of the American "culture industry," and it struck me as hugely relevant even sixty years after it was written. I can't say I disagree with very much of it, which, since the essay was written so long ago, is a testament to the remarkable accuracy and insight of the authors into the mechanisms of cultural manipulation. However, I do have some criticism of this essay as it touches on the subject of "art." I think it may be because of the historical time in which Adorno and Horkheimer were writing, but these authors seem to deny the artistic value of many important mediums, such as radio, television, film, and music.

For example, I disagree with their assertion that "movies...need no longer pretend to be art...They are just business," and that movies lack "social utility." Adorno and Horkheimer say: "as soon as the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and who will be rewarded, punished, or forgotten." There are many authentic, valuable movies out there which I would consider to be truly "great art," and which actually promote individuality and individual thought, and even promote a distancing of the individual from a corrupt society. Movies like The Usual Suspects, Memento, Pulp Fiction, The Verdict, and Presumed Innocent were all designed to find a mass audience, but all of them show a dark, profound view of reality in which mankind must face itself and its ultimate, existential fate. Further, even by the time Adorno and Horkheimer had written their essay, Citizen Kane had already emerged as a great film, as had The Grapes of Wrath, The Maltese Falcon, Stagecoach (which basically invented the Western genre), the films of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Erich von Stroheim, and many others. Adorno and Horkheimer never mention "film noir," a film genre which emerged in the early forties and which beautifully illustrated our sense of alienation from others and from society, and that we live, finally, in a world of madness. The same idea I'm describing goes for radio, which I disagree "authoritatively subjects (listeners) to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same." Of course all radio programs are not all exactly the same, especially nowadays, and many programs are obviously very informative, educational, and useful.

In general I don't think that Adorno and Horkheimer give enough credit to the ART that can emerge from film, music, television, and radio, nor do they give enough credit to "the public" or "the consumer" to be able to be aware of, ignore, and resist, manipulations orchestrated by the all-too-dominant forces of the "culture industry." We are not all the same "consumer" and we therefore don't react to lies and manipulations in exactly the same way. We are not all just cattle, with no opinions of our own, nor do we always let ourselves be herded by powerful cultural forces. We are not all just empty vessels to be filled up by powerful, hollow men. I think Adorno and Horkheimer are writing under the influence of a popular conception of the forties: that popular art cannot be "high art," which is an idea I profoundly disagree with. Take into account Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Aeschylus, Mark Twain, Michelangelo, Carravagio, Titian, Durer, Velasquez, Rembrandt, etc., etc. -- all great artists who were quite popular at the time they were making art. Popular art can still be "great art." In their essay, Adorno and Horkhemier praise Mozart and Beethoven, but don't acknowledge that Mozart and Beethoven were popular artists at the time, and famous for writing for "the masses." In other words, art is not always "prescriptive," as Adorno and Horkhemer seem to argue; art can be "descriptive." People don't always go to the movies because they're told they're good movies but because they're actually good movies.

My immediate reaction is that both of these papers are simplifying issues, and are trying to pit mass-produced, industrially and commercially oriented pop cultures against the avant-garde. For Bouillard, the avant-garde is apparently over, while Adorno and Horkheimer seem to present it as the only alternative. I think that this makes both pieces difficult to stomach (to a certain extent), because although they present a lot of interesting of critique of pop culture, they do not present the other elements of true culture in a realistic and well-rounded light. To say that nothing can ever again be avant-garde (or anticipatory) is, to me, ridiculous and not at all helpful. And, as Jonathan pointed out in his response, Adorno and Horkheimer overlook other voices in the conversation, and present an over-simplified version of pop culture as a unidirectional feeding machine. But pop culture gets its ideas and trends from somewhere. I don’t think that members of the entertainment industry need to assimilate to survive, but rather that eventually, after rejecting their ideas as unorthodox, the media does an excellent job of repackaging those same ideas as being hip once they are more generally familiar.

That being said, I was struck by the relevance of most of this essay to culture today. The authors’ idea of “false identity of the general and the particular� brings to mind people walking around trying to express their own individuality through adornment with mass produced objects. I also relate to what they say about the different categories of movies or magazines not actually being so dependent on distinguishable subject matter, but rather on “classifying, organizing and labeling consumers.� Generally speaking, people try to define their identities to themselves and to others by choosing amongst racks full of mass produced magazines that all say, essentially, their producers know who you are as an individual and can help you with all of your unique problems. “Everybody must behave (as if spontaneously) in accordance with his previously determined and indexed level, and choose the category of mass product turned out for his type.�

I do, though, wonder what the authors mean when they talk about (on page 19) how, since apparently art now costs no money, “the proximity of art to those who are exposed to it completes the alienation and assimilates on to the other under the banner of triumphant objectivity.� It seems that that they are talking about how suddenly the general public, rather than just the upper classes could afford to go to the theater and was therefore suddenly exposed to art. How is this alienating? Do they mean that this insulates the general public from good art, which much be paid for, leading to a generally diluted and uniform understanding of what art is?

Jonathan made a valid point when he mentioned how one must take into account that Adorno and Horkheimer’s essay is a reaction to a transition from the Holocaust centered Germany to the heart of the entertainment industry. In this context, their contemptuous views on capitalist society become strongly legitimized. But even today many of their ideas rings true. Many technological monopolies like the radio, movies and television are further controlled by the higher powers of banking, steel and electrical industries. In the corporate world, every product is mass-produced and mass marketed towards a specific social class. There is something for everyone.

Certainly there are groups of people who are quite conscious of this “catering to the masses�, but have reacted against it in a productive manner. In addition to the examples Rowan listed, there has been a large movement of independent films, as well as independent music, etc. This relates back to what Jonathan and Mel mentioned about overlooking the grassroots movements and other conversations. I have no doubt that a majority of our population is easily consumed into the mass marketing scheme, but there is a percentage of us who can see beyond that and can hopefully spread our own ideals.

“The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are exactly the same.� There is no denying that even today’s mass media is a structured spectacle in which the audience has limited or no ability to edit. But in the early ‘90s, when this article was written, the world-wide-web had not yet taken off. For me, the internet becomes comparable to the telephone, where “the subscriber can play the role of subject.� Yes, there is still something for everyone; but on the web, people are free to exchange ideas and respond with personal opinions that are outside of the monopolized culture industry. I think we can have a better chance now to break free from the “ruthless unity� than what Horkheimer and Adorno imply. Perhaps eventually technological progress can help to liberate culture rather than suppress it.

The idea that "the ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politics" is quite prophetic. Since Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote this essay, our political system has co-opted the values and tools of corporate power. In many cases our politics are directly influenced through the bribery of corporate lobbyist. Not only do corporations buy up the competition in the business world so that they compete against themselves and reap the benefits, they pay off various politicians on both sides of the political spectrum so that they benefit no matter who gets in office. Also, candidates tend to align themselves with various voter demographics based on principals of marketing. In many cases they shift their views to fit their target market. In John McCains case it seems as if he has taken on certain characterists of the previous administration in order to absorb their base/target market.

I also responded to the idea that "real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies". I have often found the way in which television spoon feeds the viewers information to be very disturbing. Adorno and Horkheimer state that "the sound film... leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience". This concept was first presented to me while watching a hypnotist. He said that when ever you watch TV you are in a mild hypnotic state. Your brain is essentially a sponge that passively soaks up what ever you watch. Even if you are conscious of it, it is still affecting you.

I am beginning to notice a theme here. Baudrillard, Williams and Adorno & Horkheimer are basically dealing with very similar issues. Granted they approach them from slightly different angles. As with the previous two essays I agree with most everything that they are saying and am drawn to many of the same issues in my own work. The severity to which they speak is however a little depressing and extreme. But then again maybe I am just trying to justify my own actions. As Adorno and Horkheimer conclude there essay "The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them."

I found myself highlighting over half of the text from this essay. Adorno and Horkheimer put into words unfinished thoughts and feelings so many of us share in the dark corners of our minds. And they did it over sixty years ago! So many of their claims and predictions have strengthened and grown since then. My one complaint is that they gave no hard examples or ideas of ways to lift this cloud of mass deception hanging over our heads. All gloom and doom from two German dudes. Adorno and Horkheimer should have formed a punk band called ‘The Crass Deceptors’ to really buck the system but apparently they would either be forced into bankruptcy or forced to sign with a major label and made into caricatures of themselves. Do they believe that there is no underground or small local ‘under the radar’ communities of culture and art?

“The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same.� It is as if they knew that the television set would be on for several hours a day in the homes of average Americans continuing on ‘the evolution of technology serving today’s economy’. The thing that needs to be known about the television set is how it is a one-sided conversation. It tells you what is good and bad, tasty and fancy, needed, funny, sexy, feared, etc. You do not have an open dialogue with the television. It fills the sounds, colors, actions, intentions, and thoughts for you. Your imagination is not engaged. On the contrary, when a human being is reading a book, the mind fills in the visuals and the worlds, fills in the blanks. The imagination is engaged and that person has the freedom to think for themselves in that process. Television short-circuits that, and what a powerful tool for the culture industry it has become. But Adorno and Horkheimer did not predict the Internet and its revolutionary possibility to level the playing field (nor Baudrillard for that matter). I believe we are witnessing the beginning of something that in hindsight will be seen as just as important as the invention of the printing press giving the power of print and communication to the people 500 years ago.

The couple of lines that really hit me were “All the violence done to words is so vile that one can hardly bear to hear them any longer�. This line makes me think of the destruction of words like ‘freedom’, ‘America’, ‘patriotic’. I wholeheartedly agree with them that language has been so colored and stolen by the culture industry that words are dead.
I think that is why in all my films there is no dialogue, and in my music there are no words. It frees them up, gives them a life of their own, and engages the audience in a more intimate way. It doesn’t spoon-feed these empty and overused words and allows them to fill in the blanks with their own unique imagination. The last line of the essay that kills me is “The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them�. Takes me back to ‘Brave New World’ by Aldous Huxley. So true, so true, and we keep eating it up again and again. Does art have the power to lift this cloud of mass deception?

" The idea of “fully exploiting� available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger. "

Brilliant and mesmerizing. The absolute power of capitalism results in monopoly. Monopoly creates mass culture. To keep its power it needs violence which is unveiled slowly. The planning and management of what was posited as a way to serve millions, designed on consumer needs, and what technology can help with, literally translates to those in economic power holding sway over those w/o economic power. That it is a function of the economy and thus suppresses individual consciousness is evident in his sentence, " How formalised the procedure is can be seen when the mechanically differentiated products prove to be all alike in the end."
The unity determined by the powerful sectors of industry, lead to a cultural industry, and will only move on to affect our politics is clear. " Marked differentiations such as those of A and B films, or of stories in magazines in different price ranges, depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organising, and labelling consumers."
Im interested in his thoughts about the unity of micro and macro, the detail and the general, the inability to distinguish real life from the movies, to the loss of contrast, and its affect as a tool to repress. The taking over of the room in an individuals mind to imagine and reflect.

Adorno counters all this sobering thought with some beautiful words about flaws and failures. " The great artists were never those who embodied a wholly flawless and perfect style, but those who used style as a way of hardening themselves against the chaotic expression of suffering, as a negative truth. " and " That factor in a work of art which enables it to transcend reality certainly cannot be detached from style; but it does not consist of the harmony actually realised, of any doubtful unity of form and content, within and without, of individual and society; it is to be found in those features in which discrepancy appears: in the necessary failure of the passionate striving for identity."

He says much to support the power of intimacy and specificity but ironically points out, that as a consumer there is no way out of being implicit in the triumph of advertisement. We participate, by purchasing.

I agree with Rowan’s point of the apparent denial of mainstream media as art in Adorno and Horkheimer’s essay. Television, film, pop music, and the internet are ingrained in American culture. They aren’t budging. Artists can use this media or their industry’s techniques and money to sneak their ideas into the mainstream instead of disregarding movies or radio as lowly vehicles for entertainment only.
For instance, more people understand a pop song than a performance piece. A pop song can have “social utility� if that medium is hijacked by a musician inclined to do so. Perhaps pretending not to be art can be a more effective way to reach a broad audience as opposed to making “high art� for highly educated individuals. Art preaches to the choir. We all know very few people actually visit museums and galleries.
The authors criticize the false classes of products. “That the difference between the Chrysler range and General Motors products is basically illusory strikes every child with a keen interest in varieties.� They also place illusory codes on art. If a detective or adventure movie made within the film industry serves a political purpose, is it then art?

There is so much in this essay it’s hard to pinpoint one aspect to concentrate on. I think that they are amazingly correct in their overall conclusions about the culture industry, even many decades later. The styles have changed, the stars are new, but as they say, things don’t truly change much within the industry. “Not only are the hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariable types, but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable.� Those details and clichés have changed very slowly over time, but they are so right about mainstream music, movies, and TV-- you see or hear the same phrase over and over with only the slightest variation to keep your interest. It’s cheaper to do that than to take a risk on new content, right? I love the quote, “The machine rotates on the same spot.�

But as others have noted, some things have changed and are changing along the edges. One gap in their essay is the absence of any ideas to combat the ubiquity and sameness of the culture industry. Are we hopeless? They say “The culture industry did away with yesterday’s rubbish by its own perfection, and by forbidding and domesticating the amateurish.� I think these amateurs, these people outside the stifling culture industry, have managed to clear themselves a space, to gain a spot in our culture. People who don’t have the means to advertise still have the drive to make art, and they increasingly have the means to distribute that art to a large audience outside the framework of the culture industry. I’m of course thinking of the internet, of indie record labels, of films made on digital video, of writers blogging, etc. You can see certain risks taken by these “amateurs� that have proven successful are immediately co-opted by the industry. So in some ways these fringes are leading the industry into new territory.

Adorno and Horkheimer may rebut this by saying that “departures from the norm are regarded as calculated mutations which serve all the more strongly to confirm the validity of the system.� Perhaps the answer is to foster these ‘calculated mutations’ in every way possible. It is not likely that the culture industry will go away, but to break the monopoly, to give outsiders a way to be heard may be one way to combat it. How to accomplish this I don’t know…. somehow people need to realize the value of these alternatives so they can support them, and know what they are missing when they only watch “their shows�. I do think that by simply making art and being aware of other people’s art is one small way.

Enlightenment as Mass Deception again is another negative approach to social constructs that control our every move. This reading is in depth about how the Culture Industry is a filter everything passes through. I agree that Culture is an industry and that consumers are simply numbers on a chart. We are a people of little resistance to what is being produced for us because the producers what to cater to us to make more money for themselves.

This is culture, this is the auto industry making SUV’s far longer than needed, to create a way to keep using gasoline so the oil men can make a their money. In the essay they state that the whole sphere of culture is somehow economically interwoven thus controlling every aspect of transportation, or film or broadcasting media, thus crating one mass culture machine with a purpose of profit. They go on to state that This unity in culture is reflected in the Politics. This control of the masses is Politics, where there is money is to be made from all angles.

There is too much information for me to process here, I read and re-read parts of this essay and again I am drained and tired of dissecting. It is the same story, we fight and we die. Everybody must behave according to there indexed level and choose the category of product turned out for his type.