In constructing their argument Adorno and Horkneimer point at almost anything you can imagine as a piece of evidence, whether it be the poor planning of housing and building placement in major cities (and the later decay of said buildings when new ones appear) or the way in which we interact with our media now.
They have a point, in one way or another everything is uniformed, especially in media, film, radio, magazines etc, all these media products tend to share characteristics. Everything is the same, the only difference is content. Adorno and Horkneimer are basically calling out everyone and everything as fakes, as being false, they accuse popular culture of only pretending to be art (Adorno and Horkneimer, 1). In many ways their attitude towards how media became a business industry makes me think of a reading by Malcolm Barnard that looks at how people have repeatedly tried and failed in studying media and sociology as if it were a natural science. [1]
In many ways Adorno and Horkneimer are also attacking the design by committee media culture we have today. How can there be an artistry in the likes of film if the vision of the director or original screenplay writer is interfered with by other people they work with?
"The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him." (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3). Corporations decide what we are allowed to view on television, in cinemas, on DVD and so on. The media we have to choose from were all created by or distributed by people who had the power to decide what is shown. You could argue that we are in a situation where we are letting these higher powers decide what we want and not the other way around. This doesn't just apply to media, everything we can obtain was created or distributed by someone else. Even if a man grows his own food he still has to buy the seeds from somewhere.
The only big consolation prize in all of this is that people have the power to create their own works if they are willing to dedicate themselves, even if higher powers still control how we distribute what we make we still have some form of creative freedom. If there is one huge positive in the online boom it is it has given us this freedom to create and share, at least for now anyway.
"As soon as the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and who will be rewarded, punished, or forgotten" (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3). Can originality really be found in our modern day media? No matter what story you try to tell all the possible ending scenarios will have already been guessed by the crowd, therefore in the creative culture industry it isn't about finding who has the most original idea but who has the most uncommon idea. If a piece of media shocks or surprises you it is because the direction chosen was the one that was not commonly predicted by the crowd. "Art for the masses has destroyed the dream" (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3) but is the dream really dead or is our idea of the dream now just working under the people at the top? Does a major musician or actor live the dream or are they living what we are told is the dream, i.e. working just below those in power? I suppose comparing the two is like comparing the rich to the wealthy.
Speaking of originality one story that always fascinated me was the story of the late 1960's band The Shaggs. The Shaggs was a rock band that was formed when the father of the band members (they were sisters) believed in a premonition his mother had stating that his daughters would form a popular music group. The most interesting aspect of The Shaggs was the music, listening to a song by The Shaggs one could get the impression that the band had no awareness or notions of common music conventions. The music of The Shaggs often gains a polarized reaction, some people believe it to be terrible while others see an artistry in it.
If there is one aspect of the piece I completely disagree with it is that we are living a fascist like state. That all those who do not conform must suffer and be excluded from society. I do not believe that is the case and though I can respect this argument I do not think society is under that kind of ironclad grip. As long as people are not being made to purposely suffer en masse we are not living in a fascist state. It is true that people who do not conform and fit in often become outcasts and it is true these people have been villainized for years and that is a flaw in society we have to address.I do think some of the issues tackled by Adorno and Horkneimer have been addressed at least on a small scale. The web communities and global village have bought about new kinds of sub-cultures many and have given many platforms for the non-conforming people to express themselves.
Maybe I'm missing the point Adorno and Horkneimer are trying to make here and I need to look at things differently. Maybe I am just a sheep who accepts what is given to us as art. I always thought myself as being a bit cynical when it comes to what the culture industry shoves in our faces, instead having a preference to what I feel has value as oppose to what we are told and made to believe has value. Adorno's and Horkneimer's work is definitely something I need to come back to in the future because I feel there are many things I can learn from their work.
In many ways Adorno and Horkneimer are also attacking the design by committee media culture we have today. How can there be an artistry in the likes of film if the vision of the director or original screenplay writer is interfered with by other people they work with?
"The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him." (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3). Corporations decide what we are allowed to view on television, in cinemas, on DVD and so on. The media we have to choose from were all created by or distributed by people who had the power to decide what is shown. You could argue that we are in a situation where we are letting these higher powers decide what we want and not the other way around. This doesn't just apply to media, everything we can obtain was created or distributed by someone else. Even if a man grows his own food he still has to buy the seeds from somewhere.
The only big consolation prize in all of this is that people have the power to create their own works if they are willing to dedicate themselves, even if higher powers still control how we distribute what we make we still have some form of creative freedom. If there is one huge positive in the online boom it is it has given us this freedom to create and share, at least for now anyway.
"As soon as the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and who will be rewarded, punished, or forgotten" (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3). Can originality really be found in our modern day media? No matter what story you try to tell all the possible ending scenarios will have already been guessed by the crowd, therefore in the creative culture industry it isn't about finding who has the most original idea but who has the most uncommon idea. If a piece of media shocks or surprises you it is because the direction chosen was the one that was not commonly predicted by the crowd. "Art for the masses has destroyed the dream" (Adorno and Horkneimer, 3) but is the dream really dead or is our idea of the dream now just working under the people at the top? Does a major musician or actor live the dream or are they living what we are told is the dream, i.e. working just below those in power? I suppose comparing the two is like comparing the rich to the wealthy.
Speaking of originality one story that always fascinated me was the story of the late 1960's band The Shaggs. The Shaggs was a rock band that was formed when the father of the band members (they were sisters) believed in a premonition his mother had stating that his daughters would form a popular music group. The most interesting aspect of The Shaggs was the music, listening to a song by The Shaggs one could get the impression that the band had no awareness or notions of common music conventions. The music of The Shaggs often gains a polarized reaction, some people believe it to be terrible while others see an artistry in it.
Philosophy of the world - The Shaggs (1969)
If there is one aspect of the piece I completely disagree with it is that we are living a fascist like state. That all those who do not conform must suffer and be excluded from society. I do not believe that is the case and though I can respect this argument I do not think society is under that kind of ironclad grip. As long as people are not being made to purposely suffer en masse we are not living in a fascist state. It is true that people who do not conform and fit in often become outcasts and it is true these people have been villainized for years and that is a flaw in society we have to address.I do think some of the issues tackled by Adorno and Horkneimer have been addressed at least on a small scale. The web communities and global village have bought about new kinds of sub-cultures many and have given many platforms for the non-conforming people to express themselves.
Maybe I'm missing the point Adorno and Horkneimer are trying to make here and I need to look at things differently. Maybe I am just a sheep who accepts what is given to us as art. I always thought myself as being a bit cynical when it comes to what the culture industry shoves in our faces, instead having a preference to what I feel has value as oppose to what we are told and made to believe has value. Adorno's and Horkneimer's work is definitely something I need to come back to in the future because I feel there are many things I can learn from their work.
References:
1: dorno, T.W. and Horkheimer, M. (1979) The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. London: Verso, pp. 120-124.
2.Barnard, M. 2001. Approaches to understanding visual culture. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. [1]
No comments:
Post a Comment