mostly on the culture industry
Like Jordan, I wholeheartedly agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that the Culture Industry has created what essentially amounts to gigantic piles of mass produced crap. If I understood them correctly, they refer to these piles of crap as ?aesthetic barbarism.? In one sense, this may be going a little too far. I probably wouldn?t call schlep like Beverly Hills Chihuahua uncivilized. But the attack of the crap upon other, more worthy pieces of culture is barbaric in nature. The Culture Industry shows no remorse. In fact, it often perpetuates itself upon the claim that it has not attacked and swallowed up good stuff in the name of mass production and appeal. H&A argue that aesthetic barbarism is ?threatening intellectual formations.? That?s assuming, however, that the intellectual formations matter.
There are examples of quality culture out there. Jordan mentions indie films and I suppose indie music could fit into the same category. The problem, however, is that world of the indie film is barely different than that of the Culture Industry. It?s simply a High Culture Industry. H&A claim that different levels of our intellectual formation ?do not so much reflect real differences? as provide something for everyone ?so that no one can escape.? That includes elitists (sorry, Jordan). The High Culture Industry simply provides fare that is homogenized differently than that of the Popular Culture Industry. It may be chocolate milk, but it?s milk just the same. The High Culture Industry is simply ?the category of mass product? created for a particular type. This is simply an example of how the Culture Industry attacks and swallows up the good stuff, although I will fully admit that there are some pieces of the High Culture Industry that truly stand out, just as there are elements of the Popular Culture Industry that do the same.
It seems that every time something new or good comes out, it is immediately under attack, defeated, and homogenized. If it cannot be homogenized, it is eliminated. H&A say that ?anyone that resists can survive only by being incorporated.? There are numerous examples of this as we look back: African Americans created jazz and rock and roll. It was immediately attacked and swallowed up by cover artists and record executives. Punk music in the early to mid-1970s was swallowed up and in less than a decade came out gleaming and streamlined in the form of The Clash (and twenty years later into the even more polished Blink-182). Nine Inch Nails, emerging from the post-punk rubble put forth a great piece of work with Pretty Hate Machine, by the Downward Spiral, he was engulfed by mediocrity. Nirvana, in the days of Bleach, was great. But then, they became the symbol for yet another appropriation of creativity. And after it all, we are left with the incredibly sad state of affairs in which whiny, overly sensitive brats constitute rock music. What happened to the disillusionment that created the music that created their music? It didn?t fit, so it was eliminated. Punk kids no longer shop at thrift stores or rework old clothes. They shop at Abercrombie and Fitch because the reworking has been done for them. The really hardcore punks shop at Hot Topic. Way to go, guys. You are truly bad ass.
Like Jordan, I do not believe this is the result of some class warfare. Instead, culture is getting what culture wants. McLuhan says that ?the popular press offers no single vision, no point of view, but a mosaic of the postures of the collective consciousness? (p. 196). William Gibson wrote a novel (far superior to the Difference Engine mentioned in class last week) called Pattern Recognition about a girl that tried to find the next great trend and then sends the information to the Culture Industry for appropriation. The idea is to find out what people like and produce it ad nauseum. When they tire of it, start producing the next thing in line. And we cannot simply condemn the record companies and movie studios. McLuhan quotes Raymond Williams, saying, ?While in one sense the market was specializing the artist, artists themselves were seeking to generalize their skills.? The fact is, artists want there work to appeal to the masses. They want to make money just like everyone else. Occasionally independent films break through and become huge money makers. Do you think the filmmakers are saying ?No thanks. My art is too high-brow to make millions of dollars.? No, they aren?t. And the next time they make a movie is it directed at the elitist audience? Not usually. As Jordan points out, this works both ways. Talented actors will do crappy movies in order to finance quality projects.
And there are exceptions that hold out for at least a short time. There are bands like Radiohead that insisted on making their own music. They appealed to a mass audience to make Pablo Honey popular, then injected some creativity for The Bends and OK Computer. And then Kid A arrived and it was amazing?.but then they released what essentially amounted to a B-Side album (Amnesiac) and suddenly they were homogenized. They had become their own model.
At this point, I?m not sure that I?ve been very coherent. So, I?m just going to give a couple of notes on Benjamin. I thought his argument for reproduction as a result of a desire to bring items closer to us was rather interesting. He extends that desire by calling it ?just as ardent as [our] bent toward overcoming the uniqueness? of reality. This kind of goes back to what I said above: the homogenization of culture is a result of the desires of the people, not some artificiality thrust upon them by a higher class. The truth is we long for homogenization. Americans can cry all they want about individuality, but if your idea of being an individual is listening to indie bands and buying a Mac, you aren?t much of an individual. You?re Justin Long.
The aura of a work of art is an interesting concept. Reproduction removes the aura because it takes the work of art away from ?its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.? The aura is best viewed from a distance, and reproduction brings the object closer to us. As Benjamin says, it ?meets the beholder or listener in his own particular situation.? Is the removal of the aura of a work of art the same as the dampening of spectacle by watching it on television? We don?t have the same communal connection to the Olympic opening ceremonies on television as those who are there in person do. Does spectacle lose its aura in the same way as art? Is spectacle an art form?