CRD701: History and Theory of Communication Technology

I want to focus first this week on the article by Horkheimer and Adorno because of two sentences that seem to say it all in terms of not only my own opinion on much of what we deem ?culture? from Hollywood these days but of the disturbing theme of monopoly and distracted agreement/conformity to be found throughout our readings. Horkheimer and Adorno (H&A) state ?films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce? (42). Only a couple of pages in and I think H&A may have been sitting with me the last time I actually spent $12 to see ?trash? at the movie theater!

Certainly the ?good old days? of Hollywood grandeur and ?classic? films appear more significant because the past seems to take on a warm glow of perfection when compared to our current state of film culture (think Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Grapes of Wrath) but how else can we define recent film ?bombs? that cost millions of dollars to produce and should never be (in my opinion) considered representative of our culture? Why and how did these disastrous examples of film (think Beverly Hills Chihuahua) ever get to the stage of production and distribution? Has our society really become that accepting of trash as art? Unfortunately, the readings for this week don?t offer much solace on the topic.

In most films today (unfortunately) we know (or can wisely guess) the plotline and the outcome at the start. H&A describe how ?the products of the culture industry are such that they can be alertly consumed even in a state of distraction? (45). Are you really going to need to focus to understand the plotline of the Chihuahua from Beverly Hills lost in Mexico??

Horkheimer and Adorno could not be more accurate; but what becomes so disconcerting from this recognition is why we (consumers/society) are not more intent on breaking this cycle if we are, in fact, so fully aware of it? I?ll throw in a personal example here ? my sister is an aspiring actress plowing her way through New York City. From her first encounter with an agent and every audition since she has experienced what H&A describe as the ?common determination of the executive powers to produce or let pass nothing which does not conform to their tables, to their concept of the consumer, or, above all, to themselves? (43). Hollywood is always looking for the ?new? talent but only if they look, sound, act, and can match what everyone else is already doing. Even if something or someone refreshing is out there who would bring added grace and talent to film, music, etc., there is little to no possibility that they would be accepted. Do the industry giants ignore new talent because the ?change? would force the consumer to be more aware of what they are consuming? The only saving grace that appears to have any toe in the door of the culture created by the monopolies referenced by H&A and McLuhan are the newest technologies and the generations who have turned to them for a cultural addendum. For many new musicians, actors, and actresses what has given them the preliminary opportunity to ?break? in to the industry are technologies like Myspace and Youtube. The most powerful record labels can?t ignore the millions of downloads an artist may receive from Youtube before signing someone they would have ignored otherwise. Another perfect example of the power of these new mediums is the national recognition of a bride and groom?s first dance which was posted on Youtube ? for no other reason then the number of hits this video received, the couple was interviewed in person, and performed, on the Today Show, David Letterman, and two other morning shows. A humorous event at a wedding was not considered news to the largest television networks until the new medium brought it to the attention of millions of viewers.

H&A indicate that ?anyone who resists can survive only by being incorporated? (48) but hasn?t the internet thus far proven to be a worthy, albeit new, opponent? Have we come so far in allowing the industry giants to determine our culture that resistance through the technological medium is totally futile?

As Briggs & Burke reference, the monopolies that were created in radio broadcasting as far back as the early 1920?s and subsequently the television era are still lingering in the adherence to ?the industry.? Despite what we see with Myspace, Youtube, etc. the industry giants have watchdogs who quickly ?pick-up? what is distributed in these formats to use for their own ratings and news. As R. S. Lambert claimed in his book Ariel and All His Quality, ?in the field of art, intellect and politics the BBC exercised through patronage all the power once exercised by the Court? (Briggs and Burke, 173); the industry giants, like the original BBC, are overwhelmingly the gatekeepers of what we receive as news.

McLuhan too, sees the direction we have taken citing Marconi?s perception of the new mass culture where ?language and the arts cease to be prime agents of critical perception and become mere packaging devices for releasing a spate of verbal commodities? (196). He also references Adam Smith?s translation of the Newtonian laws of mechanics as they pertain to the new mass culture, ?in opulent and commercial societies to think or to reason comes to be, like every other employment, a particular business, which is carried on by a very few people who furnish the public with all the thought and reason possessed by the vast multitudes that labour? (196). Although McLuhan makes a strong argument of our ?obliviousness? stemming from the new media culture I would challenge that like the examples of Myspace and Youtube, the study of new and old media should account for at least a small indication of NON obliviousness on our part. Our senses can?t be entirely hypnotized if we are reading McLuhan?s claims and arguing in 4,000 word blog posts (Jordan J) about where our culture stands today. Although the least ?oblivious? may be a small group, I would argue that the newest generations who are obsessed with new media technology and advancements may be the best poised for breaking the cycle of oblivion and taking better charge of what they are demanding as consumers from the industry giants. I think the technology (I?m trying to stay positive here) has the ability to provide even more means of resistance to what is distributed now and a higher level of expectation for the future?.fingers crossed.

Finally, a brief mention of Benjamin?s discussion in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction also offers a connection to the distraction of the masses in current film and television where ?reception in a state of distraction, which is increasingly noticeably in all fields of art and is symptomatic of profound changes in apperception, finds in the film its true means of exercise? (240). Is this why mass deception as suggested by H&A is possible? Unfortunately, Benjamin only seems to confirm what everyone else has been saying?we?re not paying attention to what the industry provides?so we?re accepting and promoting the trash!