This is one of the oldest of the essays we'll read this semester -- only Benjamin's writings precede it -- and yet it's also one of the most prescient and influential ones. All kinds of work on the questions of media, ideology, and culture have been shaped by it, at least in part, including the work of Barthes, Foucault, Althusser, Jameson, and Bhabha. Of course, the times have changed, but the best test of a polemical analysis such as this may not be whether it is still an accurate representation of the problem at hand, but whether, as we read it, we are able to see not only its flaws but the kinds of fresh connections to our times which its authors could not have anticipated.
Some phrases hold true, and even have fresh resonance today in 2012: "Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system" -- or how about "the universal criterion of merit is the amount of 'conspicuous production' of blatant cash investment" or "real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies." There certainly is an insightful analysis of the seemingly uninterruptable hegemony of capitalist production, whether of cars or refrigerators or motion-picture soundtracks.
Yet there's also a good deal that has become a bit dated; Adorno and Horkheimer can conceive of capitalism only in terms of centralized production of essentially identical products, which are then sent out from these centers to the consumer to fulfill the pre-manufactured desire created by advertising and exposure to images of these same products. The post-industrial landscape, in which production has moved away from most developed nations, and consumption alone keeps them going, is one they don't anticipate; neither could they foresee that new media technologies, while certainly capable of expanding the same old centralized systems, would also fragment them, and move the production of "culture" from centralized facilities (the Hollywood studio, the Newspaper plant, the recording studio) to a remarkably diverse array of millions of sites, with the majority of content created by those who, in the old system, would only have been the "end users" of such products.
The other issue with this, as with others of Adorno's works, is his deep embrace of the cultural hierarchies of the old, classic, European world. Beethoven is self-evidently brilliant; a Hollywood soundtrack that quotes some of his melodic lines is self-evident garbage. Adorno also inveighed against "Jazz" as mindless music for the masses (something apparently has been lost in translation; he uses this word not to reference Ellington or Mingus, but as a catch-all for American popular music of the 1940's, what we today would probably call "big band" music).
Yet despite these shortcomings, the analysis can often be crystal clear, as in this passage:
"The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises. The promissory note which, with its plots and staging, it draws upon pleasure is endlessly prolonged; the promise, which is actually all that the Spectacle consists of, is illusory: all it actually confirms is that the real point will never be reached, that the diner must be satisfied with the menu."
Or, as Ed Valenti, who wrote the immortal words of the original Ginsu Knife commercial, might put it: "But wait, there's more!" (Interestingly, I found in the Wikipedia that the Ginsu Knife was in fact a Rhode Island product!)
We all have the sense that, no matter how much slicing or dicing we can do, we're still likely to wake up the next day with a need to go shopping again -- or will we? The current recession may be a deeper challenge than those in the past; deprived of the possibility of conspicuous consumption, what can we do? What matter?
This is an interesting post for me, since it really talks about a disconnect between what is manufactured and what is actually received by the buyer. To truly understand where the disconnection occurs, we need to understand that all commodities, music, writing, films, etc., are all produced for a purpose. Whether they were commissioned for a particular patron or created as artistic expression, just as Jazz was, the need came from one particular person(s). Therefore, when those items are shared and allowed to move to other people who did not particular want or purchase said commodity, then the purpose of the item becomes extraneous to that end user. At this point, the secondary user or listener now can judge for themselves, whether or not, they “like” or “understand” the commodity. Which introduces the concept of “taste” or “aesthetic” to the vocabulary of purchasing, buying and consuming media. This is where Adorno, in my opinion, is giving us his perspective. To him, certain items are not what they were intended to be, and perhaps they aren’t, but they were created with a purpose. The purpose of an object is allowed to change as each and every one of us intrepret it and create our own meaning for it in our life.
ReplyDeleteConsumption stands out to me as the center of this post. Items are mass produced in order to meet the demand of the public, whether it is for consumption as food or consumption as an interest. If there was not a demand the items would not be produced, and reproduced over and over. An interesting point to me here is regarding the manipulation of consumable items, and their effect on society. Lets consider Andy Warhol and the Campbell's Soup Cans. Campbell's products are mass produced in multiple varieties, and can be found in every grocery store. But when did the popular brand become art? Was the popular food meant to be consumed or meant to be put on display? Warhol took the mass produced product and added his own artistic flare to the label media. From that point forward this product belongs in both the world of production and the world of art. Did Warhol open up our eyes to a new way to interpret an object, or did he just repurpose for his own artistic needs?
ReplyDelete