Class responses to Adorno & Horkheimer's "The Culture Industry"

Nick Engel
In The Cultural Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer the argument is made that the culture industry is becoming more powerful through new media. With this new power Adorno and Horkheimer make the argument that new media have the capabilities to manipulate and change the public. Personally, I found this to be a difficult read, similar to the Walter Benjamin article. But, I found myself agreeing with many of the arguments made by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer even though I found some of the writing to be hard to follow. At the time this article was written many of the new media that is discussed was relatively new. Much of Adorno and Horkheimer’s arguments were based on predictions. Much like Benjamin’s article I was amazed at how many of their predictions have become realities. I found The Cultural Industry to be a difficult but interesting piece and would like to discuss some arguments made in the article that struck me the most.

One of the arguments made in The Cultural Industry is that new media has somewhat destroyed art. Adorno states, “Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries.” This statement really stood out to me because I find it to be accurate in our modern lives. Much of what we see on television and movies are not to educate or enhance our minds. Television has become a huge industry where executives are only worried about putting on programming that will get their viewers from one commercial break to the next. Little to no emphasis is placed on quality or artistic expression. I personally see this often in television program targeted to my demographic. Shows on MTV like “The Hills” have no artistic value but get viewers from one commercial break to the next.

Another argument we see made by Adorno and Horkheimer is that our society has become very passive as a result of new media. Adorno and Horkheimer state that, “the public is catered for with a hierarchical range of mass-produced products of varying quality, thus advancing the rule of complete quantification.” They go on later to state that, “real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies. The sound film, far surpassing the theatre of illusion, leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience.” We can see this today in our culture because we are all victims of becoming more passive as a result of new media. The flood of mass produced products available like magazines, television and internet make us a much more passive society. Society spends hours each day passively watching the television or sitting in front of a computer. Because of new media less time is spent with our imagination because we can always find something mass produced that is catered to our wants. Here we see another case where Adorno and Horkheimer make an accurate prediction of what capabilities new media has on our society.

The idea of advertising in the new media world is another argument we see discussed by Adorno and Horkheimer in this article. They state, “Only those who can pay the exorbitant rates charged by the advertising agencies, chief of which are the radio networks themselves: that is, only those who are already in a position to do so, or are co-opted by the decision of the bank and industrial capital, can enter the pseudo-market as sellers.” I feel like in this argument the authors have predicted for a worse outcome than is seen in our society today. While the price of expensive advertising rates can be a tough barrier of entry for many companies, I do not see it as an impossibility where the result is only a few companies can be seen as sellers. Also, with the new media of the internet that barrier of entry has decreased even further. One could argue that with the continued invention of more new media advertisement will become cheaper because the ability to reach a larger amount of people will become easier. I see new media aiding competition in the advertising market and not hindering competition. In this argument Adorno and Horkheimer may have over exaggerated the effect of new media.

Another argument we see in this article is that as a result of advertising our society creates needs that do not exist. In the article Adorno and Horkheimer state, “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 this argument very compelling because I can see it in my own life. Advertising in our society is everywhere and hard to resist. I agree with the argument that advertising can create products that we class as necessities that in fact are not. For example, Apple has a well made marketing campaign with their iPod, iPhone, and iMac lines. Even though I know what Apple is trying to do with their marketing it has obviously worked on me because I “had to have” the iPhone when it came out. With new media advertising showing up everywhere in our lives, needs have been created where they wouldn’t have been before.

Overall, I found many arguments in the Adorno and Horkheimer article that I see true in our society today. Even though some of their predictions were over inflated I feel that their original message remains in tact. With the new power of the culture industry created through new media the culture industry has more power in our society to change or manipulate our population. [30]

Andrea Pelose
Tiffany readjusted herself in her chair, with no idea of what her cultures professor was talking about. Bored, she reapplied her Chanel 009 lip gloss, which was the same exact color Blake Lively wore on episode six of Gossip Girls. Instead of taking notes, she used her computer screen as a diversion to employ adequate facebook stalking for the day. She occasionally texted her best friend, Laura, a petite redhead who sat right next to her, with any interesting tidbits she stumbled across.

“The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular,” said Professor Adorno, as he circled his desk in the front of the room. He glanced up at his students. A hand elevated, stood perfectly erect. “Yes, Max?”

“Yeah, what’s microcosm?” asked Max, chewing a rather large bit of a turkey club sandwich.

The professor sighed, irritated. “A smaller model of something. The human being as an exact miniature version of the larger universe or macrocosm.”

Tiffany sat quietly wondering what macrocosm was.

“Under monopoly, all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce,” continued the professor. His speech was monotonous, but his eyebrows flared in a way that invoked both passion and fury. It was only when he paused to catch his breath that he noticed Teddy’s hand was now raised. “Teddy, thoughts?”

“I would have to say I disagree. While certainly both film and radio need to produce a level of entertainment in order to hold an audience and gain a profit, it is overly critical to say that they are not an art,” said Teddy, his voice careful. “Take film for example. If done right, the originality of the writer, the precision of angles of the director, the dramatic tension between the actors…sure it’s a process, but it’s certainly an art. It takes a certain degree of talent. Not to mention, if every film was overtly the same thing reproduced with different packaging then people wouldn’t attend them. There would be no emotion, which is arguably what film is supposed to spark.”

The professor ruled his eyes. Every year someone objected. He marginalized it down to the student being an over-exposed media junkie, tainted by the industry’s power of persuasion. “Furthermore," the professor stated, ignoring Teddy’s argument. “It is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result of the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows even stronger. He smiled smugly at Teddy.
Teddy leaned back in his seat. He knew better than to try and argue with the professor. Adorno was stuck in this 1940s mentality, where the threat of a new, rebellious generation and counter culture seemed to somehow lead to the Armageddon of both intelligence and class.

“The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it,” said Adorno.

“Yes, Max?”

Professor Adorno was vivid, both at the fact that his class again this year seemed to possess no degree of aptitude, and also that the constant interruptions were a vile distraction from his elegantly-crafted theories.

This was not a discussion class.

“It is something that is represented as such, but not the real purpose,” He snapped, then added, “Buy a dictionary.”

The professor went to his desk and swallowed four aspirins before continuing. In the third row a student was ferociously scribbling, new media is death, with all the proper illustrations.

Now composed, Professor Adorno continued. “If one branch of art follows the same formula one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends of the scale of musical experience—a jazz or a cheap imitation; of if a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled into a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.”

Tiffany was struck by his words, not because they ignited some passionate counterargument or that she realized the depth of which his intentions, but because it just reminded her that Sex and the City was out on DVD today. She immediately texted Laura, who replied that they should have a theme party where they only drink Cosmopolitans, dress like their favorite character, play the film’s soundtrack, the movie itself, and read passages from the original Candace Bushnell novel. Tiffany nodded rapidly in agreement.

“How formalised the procedure is can be seen when the mechanically differentiated products prove to be all alike in the end,” said the professor.
Teddy raised his hand, though he knew the professor would not call on him again. He decided to interject anyway, “Well, isn’t the elaborate collaboration of art, film, and music a phenomenon on their own? How people can puzzle together pieces that do not even remotely match and create a whole new meaning for something? Kind of like contemporary poetry does?”

Of course, he would like contemporary poetry, Professor Adorno mused, and irritated with anything that strayed from the likes of Robert Frost. “Only if you consider clumsily compiled pieces of nonsense to be a prophetic work of art.”

Before Teddy could form a rebuttal, he, along with the rest of the class, realized it was ten till and their class session was concluded.

The class exited the building. Tiffany and Laura climbed in Tiffany’s car, each spoke separately into their cell phones, in attempt to organize their party. Max decided he should bookmark dictionary.com in his favorites, but lost the urge as soon as he started listening to Limp Bizkit on his I-pod. Teddy was determined to go home and blog about new media, and his particular disgust for tyrant professors. [30]

Chelsea Clements
"Only those who can pay the exorbitant rates charged by the advertising agencies, chief of which are the radio networks themselves; that is, only those who are already in a position to do so, or are co-opted by the decision of the banks and industrial capital, can enter the pseudo-market as sellers. The costs of advertising, which finally flow back into the pockets of the combines, make it unnecessary to defeat unwelcome outsiders by laborious competition. They guarantee that power will remain in the same hands – not unlike those economic decisions by which the establishment and running of undertakings is controlled in a totalitarian state. Advertising today is a negative principle, a blocking device: everything that does not bear its stamp is economically suspect."As someone who has worked in and is going into the interactive marketing field, I disagree with the above quote from Adorno. With the emergence of the internet, advertising is no longer in the hands the rich, who are able to pay the exorbitant rates of traditional advertising. Viral videos and microsites have become an effective and extremely cost efficient way to advertise a service or product. Often times, these videos have no advertising and become a huge phenomenon by just word of mouth and email forwards.

According to Wikipedia, "Viral marketing and viral advertising refer to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness or to achieve other marketing objectives through self-replicating viral processes, analogous to the spread of pathological and computer viruses. It can be word-of-mouth delivered or enhanced by the network effects of the Internet. Viral marketing is a marketing phenomenon that facilitates and encourages people to pass along a marketing message voluntarily. Viral promotions may take the form of video clips, interactive Flash games, advergames, ebooks, brandable software, images, or even text messages"

A good example of what I'm talking about it is the website called "The Subservient Chicken" (http://www.subservientchicken.com/). This site is affiliated with Burger King but the site does not make it very obvious unless one chooses to further investigate, which is half the fun of a concept like this. The site is of a man in a chicken suit, sitting in a basement who will do almost any command that you type into a box. He can do the work, pushups, peck at the ground, do jumping jacks and many more. A few developers who wrote the code, a man in a chicken suit and a webcam, all of which are very inexpensive, created it. According to an article in AdWeek, within a day, the site had a million hits. Within a week, it has received 20 million hits. In statements released by Burger King, sales for the TenderCrisp Chicken Sandwich had significantly increased and the growth of awareness for the sandwich had double-digit growth. This was not an expensive project. It was completely passed around by word-of-mouth and not an expensive ad campaign.

Another example of effective viral marketing is the Coke/Mentos experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKoB0MHVBvM). Two men, dressed in white lab coats and goggles, drop mentos into 2 liter bottles of Coke, resulting in a volcanic eruption of foam into the air. The experiment is put to music and the two men use the foaming Coke bottles in a theatrical manner. The result? Over 7.5 million views to date. Neither Coke nor Mentos had a part in creating this video and they didn't even know about until discovering it on YouTube. Mentos embraced the video and have plans to use the two men in future ads. Coke was no so pleased, saying that is not the intended use for their products, however after seeing how Mentos responded to the video, Coke become more accepting of the ads.

With the direction that advertising and marketing is going, I do not believe that only those who can pay exorbitant rates for advertising can enter the pseudo-market as sellers. What will determine that is the channels in which companies chose to reach potential customers and personalizing the campaigns to the customers needs and wants. For more insight on this, I encourage you to stop into on of Glenn Platts Marketing 419 classes that I have on Tueday and Thurdsay from 12:30-1:45. This is a great example of an IMS class and bringing together a traditional discipline of marketing with interactive media forms.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subservient_Chickenhttp://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000828049 [30]

Jason Andrews
“The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer unfolds as an argument comparing popular culture to a standard product akin to the ideals of capitalist government. In their argument they cite the underlying formulas that define popular culture in films, music, novels, etc. in relation to politics — similar to Walter Benjamin’s argument that mechanical reproduction creates a distracted viewer withholding creativity and imagination from the aforementioned. Adorno and Horkheimer also argue a loss of style and the evils of advertising in a consumer based industry.

As Horkheimer and Adorno stressed, the essential characteristic of the culture industry is repetition. For these two men, the sphere of creativity is withheld and even conformed by larger social powers. It might be argued that the standardization of the cultural product under late capitalism is technologically determined, however, Horkheimer and Adorno soon condemn the independence of technology arguing its power is attained only through the power of monopolies and great corporations. Because of this the consumer begins to be targeted as a formula instead of an individual, such as the soap opera with its substitutable episodes, the hubris of a male star in a film, or any of the “ready-made clichés” slotted into various subplots. This repetition is due to the standardized and repetitive processes of monopoly capitalist industry.

Under late capitalism, the monotonous daily work of men could only be escaped by approximating it in one's leisure time. This sets the terms for cultural products: "no independent thinking must be expected from the audiences" instead, "the product prescribes every reaction." The commonplace of these formulas creates an expected visual, a humdrum acceptance of a series of events. It is predictable and imagination is lost. Eerily similar to Benjamin’s argument, the standardization of this cultural product, also relates itself to politics easily seen with our current two party systems. The distinction created between both the Republican and Democratic system as either conservative or liberal (respectively) satiates the needs of pre-determined audiences in a simple formula. To this point, the authors’ argument suggests that both popular culture and its audience suffer a radical loss of significance under late capitalism. Adorno stresses that the standardization of the cultural product is not a consequence of mass production however, that "the expression ‘industry’ is not to be taken literally. It refers to the standardization of the thing itself and to the rationalization of distribution techniques, but not strictly to the production process."

This loss of significance becomes more obvious when both Adorno and Horkheimer begin to analyze the disappearance of style from the standardized modern art forms. Again the Marxist arguments of Benjamin and aura become familiar in this writing by Adorno and Horkheimer. For these authors style is defined as an escape from chaotic expression, a departure from the monotony of art itself. Style is a façade for real life—life exists in aesthetics not the obvious—a conceived notion of uniqueness but truly generalist at its core. Because work relies on its similar counterparts for success, style is lost in its individuality. Adorno states, “Once his particular brand of deviation from the norm [the creators “style” and unique approach to a topic] has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism.” This merger of individualistic approaches to media and mass consumption becomes the antithesis of the loss of style.

While the authors bemoan the loss of style, they attack the use of advertising and graphic representation by “those who control the system.” “The cost of advertising,” Adorno and Horkheimer state, “make it unnecessary to defeat unwelcome outsiders…they guarantee that power will remain in the same hands.” The argument continues condemning advertising as a system of publicity no way necessary for people to know the goods of the market. Even an overwhelming presence in publications consumes the reader as advertising becomes scarcely distinguished from editorials. “The object is to overpower the customer,” who the authors say, “is convinced as absent-minded or resistant.” The fusion of word and thing make the meaning transparent, as the written word slowly becomes another lost art for these two pioneers of the culture industry.

Again the reading, like Walter Benjamin’s essay, was an extremely difficult read. While I contribute a great deal of that to the translation of the works, it was hard to retain a constant stream of thought and absorb the arguments the authors were making. From what I believe I understood, I agree to a point with Adorno’s argument that film and other media has adopted formulas to define the product which they produce. Again and again films that see success are mimicked in attempts to achieve monetary gains. The first example that comes to mind is the quick release of both “Deep Impact” and “Armageddon” or even the continuous flow of comic based motion pictures that have emerged in the last few years. However as a Graphic Designer, I could not help but be slightly offended (perhaps not the best word) at Adorno and Horkheimer’s evaluation of advertising and graphic representation in publicity. While the use of advertising does establish consumer trust and brand loyalty, in today’s media driven society it has become increasingly important to differentiate products from the masses. Effectively given consumers a choice in product, rather than forcing items upon them. Overall though I am just mostly curious how these two men would interpret our web 2.0 societies now in contrast to the culture upon which this was written. [30]

Meaghan Luby
“The Culture Industry” by Adorno raised a lot of points in its interpretation that I am not exactly sure I was on board with but which were nonetheless interesting. His biggest point seeming to be that mass production is killing culture. From what I can tell, the “cultural industry” is producing its commodities through the mass media which is manipulating us (the great populace) into thinking it is what we want. I can’t make myself buy into this exactly, I feel like we like what we want and that if it was not what we wanted, well, we would not want it. However, things like fashion, music, movies… the argument points out that I give people (and sadly myself) too much credit. It truly does make some sense that we would be so influenced into believing what we are fed rather then what we actually believe ourselves to want. Plus it explains fads such as Furbies (which are in all honesty the most demonic child’s toy I have ever seen, why my generation was hooked I have no idea but would like to blame the media brainwashing me if I could). Adorno used this concept as a basis of his argument, explaining that “the manipulation of taste and the culture’s pretense of individualism” was fed to us through the mass media, which would also explain how things like Boy Bands were considered good music.

The real crux of his argument however seemed to be the fact that while the mass media is producing this massively consumed mass produced massively popular culture, it is creating sheep people. Follow the herd, go with the pack, don’t question the culture you are being fed when it’s easier to simple take what we are offered. Everything is standardized, even though in our generation you can get almost any product “custom”, you are still buying the iPod, laptop, starbucks coffee you are told you can’t live without. “The easy pleasures available through consumption of popular culture make people docile and content”. So unless I am reading that totally wrong: we’re sheep. Thinking isn’t something we aggressively do anymore in order to produce a culture popular because it is what we actively want. Which brings us back full circle to the manipulation aspects of his theory.

The big threat of these ideas however is that the mass-produced and passively accepted culture is going to kill the arts. Driven by making money, appealing to the stupid sheep masses, and industries- how on earth could this environment be even slightly beneficial to the arts? It kills everything that they would stand for, including but not restricted to the ideals of creativity, freedom, the individual over the mass, really just the idea of a product being genuine and unique. He explains that these are the true needs we have and that cultural industry has created false needs., namely by the present fact that we demand shallow, group think, standardized production instead of feeding our “true needs”. [30]

Lyndsay Ehrmann
In reading Adorno’s “The Culture Industry,” I noticed a lot of similarities to Walter Benjamin’s essay we read earlier about mechanical reproduction. What kinds of things would Walter Benjamin have to say about Adorno’s work? (As an interesting side note, I noticed that Walter Benjamin wrote his essay in 1936, while “The Culture Industry” was written in 1944. Adorno’s “The Culture Industry” talked about the same idea of media made for mass production, focusing on both the style of the new mass media and the consumer’s role in this growing form.

In reflection of this essay, it is important for first define what Adorno meant when he referred to “The Culture Industry.” In this case, he is not actually referring to industrial production, but the processes his modern society used to standardize/regulate, market, and distribute all media forms-such as films or magazines-to the general public, with the goal of creating a homogenous society that accepts, or even embraces, its current conditions. In more simple terms, “The Culture Industry” is the media business of producing a society it shapes through its propaganda forms. The culture becomes in a mind of artificial consciousness that ignores the actual political patterns of domination and capitalism because of the monotonous media forms they are fed, reinforcing acceptable social norms and attitudes.

Now that the main idea for Adorno’s essay has been laid out, it can be compared with Walter Benjamin’s ideas in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Both Walter Benjamin and Adorno’s pieces obviously circle the theme of mass production. One of the major ideas centering it that they discuss is the style of media made for mass consumption. Walter Benjamin takes a route in explaining that mechanically reproduced art forms lose their uniqueness and traditional qualities (or meanings)-a term he calls the art’s “aura.” Adorno also follows this basic idea, but takes it further to talk less about what it means for the art itself, but more about what this means to the mass consumers. He talks about how mass produced media forms, as well, completely lose their individuality-everything is identical and follows the same basic patterns, just in different forms. He is quoted in his essay as saying, “Interested parties explain the culture industry in technological terms. It is alleged that because millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods.” That quote is a perfect example of why both Benjamin and Adorno believe anything mass produced will completely lose its unique significance.

Furthermore, in Adorno’s case, the media forms become completely identical. Adorno then goes more in depth to further explain what in our “culture industry” makes all media forms identical, beyond the fact that they are mass produced. He explains that there are only a few people at the top that completely monopolize the media industry, and it is to their advantage to keep society running with the acceptable social norms which benefit them (as described earlier in the definition of a “culture industry.” Therefore, they keep all media to a watered-down, monotonous form that makes all art forms standardized, producing a well-standardized society. This idea is best illustrated in Adorno’s quote, “But any trace of spontaneity from the public in official broadcasting is controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions, and official programs of every kind selected by professionals.”

The next main idea surrounding the theme of mass produced products both Benjamin and Adorno discuss in detail is the role of the mass consumers. Both men take the same stance that consumers are now mindless in their consumption of art forms, the monotony of the mass consumed taking away the need to think in order to absorb them. In particular, both Benjamin and Adorno use the example of sound film. Walter describes movies as needing “no attention by the viewer.” Adorno is quoted as saying, “The sound film, far surpassing the theater of illusion, leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience, who is unable to respond within the structure of the film, yet deviate from its precise detail without losing the thread of the story; hence the film forces its victims to equate it directly with reality.” In both cases, the consumers are seen as mindless; however, Adorno takes it a step further to relate it to his idea of “culture industry,” in that sound films are media’s propaganda of what the public should see their reality as. Adorno also explains how the relationship between artist and consumer, as talked about by Benjamin as well, becomes less personal with mass production-that connection is lost when the audience is in the millions, with no thought to the actual artist when consuming the media form. Adorno explains the culture industry management as seeing consumers as “statistics on research organization charts, divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique is that used for any type of propaganda”

Although this is just a small summary of warrants and examples that Adorno suggests of mass production, aligning with Walter Benjamin’s ideas, it illustrates the basic framework that both their themes were built upon. Mass produced media/art forms become monotonous in their production, and the role of mass consumers becomes mindless and strategized-in the case of Adorno, by the management. In terms of the culture industry, this is done in a propaganda form to create a society, or “culture,” that is fed, and therefore agrees, with today’s social standards and norms. It is my belief that our society, as consumers, has changed the term “culture industry,” to today’s idea of “pop culture-“which, interestingly enough, we welcome with open arms (even though it is still the same form of propaganda described by Adorno. Adorno opens his essay with a quote that I would like to close this essay with, as it describes in one short sentence the overall theme of Adorno’s ideas-“Culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.” We, as consumers, do not openly discuss this fact; however, it is definitely a truth in our modern “pop culture.” [30]


Jennifer Pace
Reading ³The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception² by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer was challenging essay that criticized the technology and how it was affecting the creativity of culture. Culture impressed ³the same stamp on everything.² The views in this essay were similar to the views Walter Benjamin expressed in his essay ³The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.² Both essays emphasize that the reproduction of art and mass communication and culture are leading us toward a society without authenticity and uniqueness. They believe that all forms of media have lost true meaning and originality. I disagree with both essays. I believe they have a backwards way of thinking. They are against change and cannot find the benefits of how technology has enhanced and developed different forms of communication and art.

Art takes on many forms in our culture. It can be in the form of music, literature, film and TV production, advertisements, fashion and many other outlooks. All of these forms of art are considered to be a part of mass culture. Adorno and Horkheimer believe that ³all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through.² Mass culture is constantly changing. A lot of times it is similar, but a new style emerges when someone breaks the mold. Style is about a new look or new way of thinking. There are so many different styles art and ways of thinking in our society. Usually there is one dominant style that reflects the aesthetic values of our culture during a certain period of time. This style pushes people to break boundaries and come up with a new unique twist on mass cultural ideals. Just looking at different forms of art created today you can see the different styles. Artists alter styles and find new ways of representing current and past trends. Today you can see vintage, grunge, minimalist, retro and abstract ideas, which are only a view styles that are being used in different forms of art.

Technology is a huge part of our lives. Having no power for a couple of days showed how useless and meaningless we were as a society. My work does not exist without a computer and the other technology that is associated with it. With no electricity there was no Internet. I felt out of touch with the world and media. The Internet is my source for all my information. It would be interesting to know what Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer¹s thoughts on the Internet would have been. Their critiques would be surrounded by their disappointments of this technology and how it has ruined art and originality. They would hate the idea of using templates to create a website. Most websites are organized in the same fashion with a navigation bar and its content. Adorno and Horkheimer would see this as another technology that allowed ³ready-made clichés to be slotted in anywhere.² Website templates emphasize this concept of slotting information in a similar setting that is seen across the web. The technology of the Internet is a place that synthesizes other forms of mass culture and technology in one place. Adorno did not agree with how television was trying to fuse with radio and film. This shows a huge reason why he would not like technology today, especially the Internet. Making products that blend multiple functions together is a major them in our society today. Products like the iPhone would not be popular if it did not have the commodities of radio, television, movies, Internet, photography and a phone all in one.

The art I create starts off as the traditional meaning of art in the form of a sketch but it is then scanned or recreated on the computer. This allows it to be mass-produced and in Adorno¹s eyes a lack of creativity and art. Mass production allows people all over the world able to view something, how is that bad? Adorno and Horkheimer have made their point about the ³technology of the culture industry [is] no more than the achievement of standardization and mass reproduction, sacrificing whatever involved a distinction between the logic of the work and that of the social system.³ Making art no longer art, or ³true² art. The art has not sacrificed any meaning. It has just taken on a new way to communicate to people. They criticize the mass reproduction, which makes art a commodity that is available to everyone. [30]

Cassie Gladden
Click here to read Cassie Gladden's PowerPoint response to Adorno and Horkheimer. [30]

Scott Turner
This reading, "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception," talked about what is essentially the phenomenon of an economy becoming increasingly culture driven, in that as consumers we differentiate between brands (or rather that they are differentiated for us) in a way that promotes artificial differences in what products we buy. The result is that while everyone revels and participates in what is disguised as great technological and industrial accomplishment makes them all become the same exact thing. While the beginning was really strong (the second paragraph reminded me so much of ‘Little Boxes’ by Malvina Reynolds), I think the point was lost on me by the end, perhaps because of the changes in media since this essay was written.

Adorno and Horkheimer argue that because culture impresses the same stamp on anything, "all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through." The subsequent effect is that the mass media no longer tries to conceal monopoly by saying that movies and radio are art; they let the shows promote this business ideology so that they can continue to make this ‘rubbish.’

Another effect is that "any trace of spontaneity…is controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs of every kind selected by professionals." I think this was especially true when this essay was printed, in that the broadcasting media was solely the big 3. But I think the case is different now; the advent of cable tv and the internet have increased the long tail effect to the point where art really is making a comeback. Because artists now have a platform to introduce their ideas without being mainstreamified to appeal to the masses, the ideas that catch on are directly legitimized by their artistic merit, not how much money has been pumped into their advertising.

Speaking of which, one of the points that I want to riff on is the last sentence in the essay. It goes "The great triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though the see through them." It reminds me of the scene in the Mad Men pilot where the Sterling Cooper advertising group is meeting with the Lucky Strike execs. Reader’s Digest has just come out with the report on the negative health benefits of cigarettes, making it so none of the cigarette companies can say that their cigarette is better than the other. Don Draper, Sterling Cooper’s advertising genius who has so far failed to come up with a solution, asks the execs as they are about to leave how Lucky Strikes are made. The owner of the company starts telling him how the cigarettes are made and Draper extracts a single step of the process and writes it on the board: "It’s toasted."

They can say anything they want. Even though the consumer knows cigarettes are bad for them and that these qualities are artificial if not completely made up, they still willingly buy and use the product. They claim these differences between the brands are the selling point, the thing that makes their brand superior, but really they are just to encourage consumer competition and subsequently consumption. The argument here is that this economic coercion is the result of the mass consumer buying into a failing ideology.

But the problem lies for me with Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument in that I’m not sure if I really believe whether this is a bad thing. Sure I believe this effect exists, but why does it matter? What else would we spend our money on and really how artificial is the taste between brands? How closely does the entertainment industry really reflect this ideology? I feel the difference between Birkenstocks and Wal-Mart sandals. And if I can taste the difference between Orbit and 5 chewing gum, why does it matter whether I prefer one over the other? Sure we could debate the finer points of philosophy or worldview, but how many ideas are really new? And besides, buying stuff and watching TV is a lot easier and a lot more fun.

It goes back to Don Draper and like the eight episode of the first season where he’s hanging with his mistress and the hippy stoners and one of them says "It’s you who creates the lie." Draper says back to him, "I hate to break it to you but there is no big lie." Dressed in his suit, he turns around and walks out of the apartment and past the policemen all the hippies were so afraid of. I think there’s just a difference between those who can see through the veil of the mass media and those who can’t. If someone doesn’t get it then it’s not my fault they can’t play the game. [30]

Mary DelGrande
It is very easy to sense Adorno’s tone in this essay, and he is very distraught and upset with the culture industry. Every piece of culture and media that has ever been produced is for mass consumption by producers who want that specific audience to react automatically without thinking through what is shown before their eyes. Movies, magazines, and radios make up one set of uniform systems, which is set up for the consumer to take in and swallow without thinking twice about it. As the consumer sits there and thinks they are enjoying what they are reading or listening to, the company directors are controlling them and their products, almost as if it is a capitalistic system in which the government controls what the viewers are allowed to either view or not view. Because of this, there is an overall lack of spontaneity in any form of culture, and the culture itself is no longer art but a way in which companies can make money off those who suck it all in and do not give what they are viewing a second thought.

Any thought or trace of spontaneous detail or action in a movie or a magazine is not spontaneous at all, rather it is controlled by “talent scouts, studio competitions, and official programs selected by professionals.” Adorno states, in this same paragraph, that talented performers belong to the industry even before they audition for roles on film. This is a direct result of the publics attitude towards the culture industry and viewing what they think is art because, “it’s done to satisfy spontaneous wishes that are no more than hot air.” One film will be created by one major studio, and the special effects will be amazing and the public will flock to see it and cry over it, like Titanic, but once that film is over the same directors have to think of the next “big thing” to top what they previously did, although the effects will be the same, the plot will be the same, the characters will be the same, but the only real difference will be the movie title. This is, in no way, shape or form, art. These are all copies off of one another and for the consumer who wants to see a movie will sit there and take it in thinking that this film is radically different from the film produced six months ago with the same effects.

Another example Adorno provides the readers of the lack of spontaneity is the example of Chrysler & GM and Warner Brothers & MGM. While Chrysler and GM may appear to be different car companies offering different products, the reality of the situation is that there is no difference. Some of these differences are, “number of cylinders, cubic capacity, details of patented gadgets.” For the movie industry, the differences are, “number of stars, the extravagant use of technology, labor, and equipment, and the introduction of the latest psychological formulas.”

With these examples, it makes me wonder if there is no real spontaneity in any type of culture medium. Are there any different types of creativeness? In fashion, which is projected in magazines and in film, designers take pride in their work and their different trends and how well put together their outfits are. But take a step back from that and question: who decides what the fashion trend will be that season? Does one person decide and everyone else follows suit? If so, then there really is no spontaneity and everything we, as consumers take in and read and view, is fake. The lack of creative juices flowing is a disappointment for the consumer because when they purchase an article of clothing from a high-end designer, they think they are buying something radically different from another designer. The only difference, really, is the nametag. Like Adorno said, it is talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs that control spontaneity, therefore there is no real spontaneity.

Another industry, although it may be different from culture, is the airline industry. It is a business, and they want to make money just like the film industry, yet all but one company has the same business model. The airlines that have gone bankrupt, such as United and Delta, all have the same business model. Southwest, since it originated in 1967, has upheld the same business model continuously and they have yet to fail. Business models aside, was Southwest, as a company, creative in coming up with a different model or was it just the exact opposite of what the others were doing at the time? This is very similar to Chrysler and GM, the two car companies Adorno mentioned. The difference is the price, how many seats are offered, and the paint on the outside of each plane. There is no creativeness in any industry, whether it is a culture industry or a business. Consumers are tricked into believing this, but after reading this essay I realize that creativeness is lacking everywhere and wonder if creativity will ever be possible. [30]

Megan Skelton
I nearly reached page eight when I came to the frustrating realization that reading this piece was like reading a maze of run-on sentences that had to painfully be read over and over, sometimes never to be understood at all. However, I believe that my overall frustration was not so much even with the translation of the writing as with the general message of tone.

Although Dialectic of Enlightenment was written in 1944, I allowed myself to keep relating it back to modern day examples of the same situations. Adorno argues that popular culture is akin to a factory-producing standard of culture that groups the masses into a life of passivity. He believes that the “culture industry” creates false needs which result in or false or artificial happiness. Everything written in purely speculation and is a theorized concept just as I will produce myself, adversely to Adorno.

In the very first paragraph of this particular chapter, Adorno concludes by stating that “culture now impresses the same stamp on everything”, disagreeing with the common sociological theory that technological and social advancements and continuing specifications have led to cultural chaos. Just a little further down the line, an interesting analogy is made. He says that the telephone is to radio as liberalism is to democracy. Can you really draw such a stark comparison between the two? Radio today does allow the listener to be a subject of sorts. The listener can call in and offer his/her own opinion whether agreeing or disagreeing with whoever is on the other side. Then he proceeds to infer that original art such as a Beethoven symphony or a Tolstoy novel, if ever translated into another medium would be completely garbled into trash. I tend to believe that anyone can take something already in existence, where considered beauty or trash, can be turned into something even more wonderful.

“…Industry robs the individual of his function. Its prime service to the customer is to do his schematizing for him”. This is as if to say that we are all just machines with programmed reactions to whatever is tossed our way. There is no say from the general public in what we can or cannot be exposed to, that is already decided for us. Maybe that would be so if we were that brainwashed by the media.

I can’t help but want to disagree with each statement that I can actually decipher. Even though much of what he says is in part true, nothing is so black and white. I think that as an artist, you can’t just believe anything that you hear or see; you try to see the other side. This is not to say that I don’t have a strong opinion about anything, it only means that I am not so myopic to think that everything is one way or the other.

Adorno offers a fairly encompassing statement: “The whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry”. I assume in reading all of this that “culture industry” is a self-coined term that surmises that everyone (self excluded) is affected by the consumption of pop culture, keeping them from being able to decipher reality from illusion. If it weren’t so extreme, I might believe it to be true. At least offer possible exceptions so as to validate your own convictions.

There is great attention paid to the idea of style in culture as Adorno moves through his writing. He writes that “in the culture industry, the notion of genuine style is seen to be the aesthetic equivalent of domination” and then that “style represents a promise in every work of art”. I have trouble relating the two statements and finding the actual meaning of style in this industry.

Adorno makes the point that times have changed in that “the ruler no longer says: You must think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do: your life, your property, everything shall remain yours, but from this day on you are a stranger among us”. So if you conform you are right and if you don’t you are an outcast to society and will have no power because when you are the only one with your beliefs, it is too easy to be seen as wrong. When Adorno speaks about our despise for connoisseurs, he makes the point that we all of access to the same information, so it would be hypocritical to hate those who use it to their advantage. I tend to agree with this except for the fact the in this day and age, we all don’t necessarily have the same access to the same luxuries or information because of wealth, or lack there of.

Throughout his writing I get the feeling that Adorno believes that we are all just a product of society and that all music and film and art and media in general has no artistic qualities. I say that there is an art to art. Not everything is created because of a “manufactured need”. We can all make bold statements of our own, and we do. He says, “the culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises” and that the “diner must be satisfied with the menu”. If that were true, don’t you think that the world would just be numb to everything put before them. We are still here and fighting for beliefs, no one is just succumbing to whatever is “on the menu”.

I continue to be annoyed as Adorno makes conclusions about laughter and happiness, which I decipher as being fake. Why can’t happiness be real and laughter just be laughter. I can’t believe that all of my reactions to situations are manufactured responses.

“Culture is a paradoxical commodity”. I feel as though the statement in itself is paradoxical. I don’t think that you can define culture itself as a paradox, but it is certainly a commodity.

Adorno starts to wrap up his writing in relating propaganda and advertising to the culture industry. He states that advertising “helps sales only indirectly”. If I thought that were true, than I am certainly in the complete wrong field. Plus, I believe there are plenty of statistical data to disprove that one.
In his conclusion paragraph Adorno says that “personality scarcely signifies anything more than shining white teeth and freedom from body odor and emotions”. Maybe I am just now realizing my optimistic nature, but I can’t bare reading anymore cynical articles without an optimistic outlook thrown in the mix. I look around in my art studio as I write and see a roomful of completely individual personalities. [30]

September 24 Class on Adorno and Horkheimer's "The Culture Industry"

Please prepare a response for Adorno and Horkheimer's essay on "The Culture Industry."

If you do a conventional response paper, it should be between 750 and 1,000 words long and use direct quotations and other evidence in support of your viewpoint.

As we discussed, I am very interested in alternative responses, which could range from sort of graphic engagement with the ideas or themes that Adorno raises, or a Powerpoint presentation.

Be creative and out there in discussing his main ideas as you understand them.