The Culture Industry

[Spockydog]

7 hours ago, maarsen said:

Theda makes a very important point. One cannot assume that art consumed by those of a higher social status is superior to that culture that appeals to those of us without much social standing.

Aye. Sleaford Mods are artistically outstanding.

[JGP]

8 hours ago, maarsen said:

Theda makes a very important point. One cannot assume that art consumed by those of a higher social status is superior to that culture that appeals to those of us without much social standing. The only difference is the higher classes have more time to produce art and can, in theory, produce more and better art. In real life, not so much. Talent and genius both seem to strike at random with the only difference being access to the market for art.

Dude, I saw a program [man, wracking my brain and I can't recall which] where this guy or pair of guys tracked the career trajectories of thousands of artists and mapped an algorithm that quite reliably can predict whether or not an artist will go big mainstream-- the biggest factor is which scene they're nearby. Only very rarely did an artist considered on the fringe go bigtime. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by JGP

[karaddin]

4 hours ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

I'm sure that if I spent a bunch of time understanding how difficult certain things are to do, how innovative some people are, how amazing some of the improvisation is that I could appreciate it.

But it sounds at best like background music for a more interesting thing going on in the world. 

Funnily enough a lot of the work that really impresses me (when I have someone explain what's actually being done, because I don't have the knowledge to identify it myself) is scoring for things like television or games which is quite literally background music lol. Art where the audience doesn't need to consciously appreciate what's going on, and often for the audience to be conscious of it would mean it's actually failing - its just meant to be subconscious hand rails to help the audience understand the narrative rather than there for its own end.

 

4 hours ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Art can be used as a protest to show people harsh realities when those are being faced - or it can be used as a ray of shining hope in those same harsh realities. Beauty is also a way to fight fascism. 

I think at the end of the day the most important defining feature of art for me is that it makes you feel, and there's a huge spectrum of emotions to be feeling that align against fascism and really only a few that serve it, so I agree here. Fighting fascism is important, and part of fighting it is having those things we hold precious that you're fighting to protect.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

It's not exactly what H & A were writing about, but Alan Moore's take on magic, art, and culture has a lot of points that agree with their Culture Industry framework.

Incidentally, H & A themselves used sorcery as a metaphor for advertisements. A key difference is that Moore thinks all culture derives from the ur-magical mindset, and only some of it is bad. And, it was probably more a rhetorical convenience for H & A but still, a similar train of thought.

Alan Moore previously expressed his admiration for filmmaker Adam Curtis, and Curtis' documentary The Century of the Self also touches on similar themes, specifically relating to PR, advertising, and product placements. At least, parts 1 and 2 do. Definitely recommend for anyone who never saw it.

And of course, plenty of other scholars have commented on this general topic. Hannah Arendt and Noam Chomsky come to mind. And Neil Postman with Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly.

I think these types of arguments make most sense at broad levels. The temptation is to think about individual people (am I a zombie?) or individual artists (is this an opiate or an antidote), but the heart of the framework lies in the systems and the dynamics. 

Still, without feeling guilty or self-conscious about where one might fall on the asleep-awake spectrum, I do think individuals have some power to stay sharp and get sharper, particularly engaging with art that seeks to challenge them. As mentioned ad infinitum, it need not be via John Cage or any specific artist. It's more the desire, the process, and the effort that matters.

But ideally mixing it up with other uses for art, of course. If all we had was dour, self-serious films and atonal music, with no fun or dancing, that would be its own sort of dystopia.

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Theda Baratheon]

On 9/26/2023 at 4:06 AM, karaddin said:

Funnily enough a lot of the work that really impresses me (when I have someone explain what's actually being done, because I don't have the knowledge to identify it myself) is scoring for things like television or games which is quite literally background music lol. Art where the audience doesn't need to consciously appreciate what's going on, and often for the audience to be conscious of it would mean it's actually failing - its just meant to be subconscious hand rails to help the audience understand the narrative rather than there for its own end.

 

I think at the end of the day the most important defining feature of art for me is that it makes you feel, and there's a huge spectrum of emotions to be feeling that align against fascism and really only a few that serve it, so I agree here. Fighting fascism is important, and part of fighting it is having those things we hold precious that you're fighting to protect.

I LOVE scores. Films, video games etc. I think they’re so clever. Some of my favourite things have been really lesser known film scores, that no one is really going to listen to by themselves but there’s a magic to being able to lift up and elevate the emotions in a scene. So I agree that some background music can be absolutely incredible art. 
 

also agree with Larry that not all art has to challenge us. It absolutely can be magnificent in uplifting our spirits and bringing us together or inspiring us to make a change in our lives. But it can also be away of escaping and finding peace for a moment and in this world, that is valid too. It might be seen as the equivalent of an unhealthy coping mechanism like binge eating to shut off the white noise in your brain but sometimes we need little coping mechanisms to, well, cope. 
 

I’ll listen to music and watch films and admire art in museums and galleries that makes me feel profoundly moved, challenges me, but I’ll also enjoy art that simply transports me away from my stresses and worries, if only for a brief moment. I think both are valid. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I LOVE scores. Films, video games etc. I think they’re so clever. Some of my favourite things have been really lesser known film scores, that no one is really going to listen to by themselves but there’s a magic to being able to lift up and elevate the emotions in a scene. So I agree that some background music can be absolutely incredible art. 
 

also agree with Larry that not all art has to challenge us. It absolutely can be magnificent in uplifting our spirits and bringing us together or inspiring us to make a change in our lives. But it can also be away of escaping and finding peace for a moment and in this world, that is valid too. It might be seen as the equivalent of an unhealthy coping mechanism like binge eating to shut off the white noise in your brain but sometimes we need little coping mechanisms to, well, cope. 
 

I’ll listen to music and watch films and admire art in museums and galleries that makes me feel profoundly moved, challenges me, but I’ll also enjoy art that simply transports me away from my stresses and worries, if only for a brief moment. I think both are valid. 

Maybe it was a mistake of mine to bring up Adorno when writing about this topic, given how hard his snobbishness can be to get past. Re-reading Dialectic of Enlightenment is what got my thinking about this stuff recently, but that type of purism is not what I'm trying to promote. There's no one good way to utilize art.

There's also nothing wrong with enjoying something stupid and fun once in a while. Lord knows I love my dumb fun music or movies. If someone says "no eating candy ever" or "only eat cold tofu," that wouldn't be realistic health, or actual wellness. 

But I can accept a softer criticism of culture being something like "candy and fast food are getting more and more prominent in the typical daily diet." It's not everyone, it's not always, but it's an increasing overall tendency, particularly as transmitted by the prominent media/tech of the day. Of course no one likes the killjoy telling them to eat their vegetables, but it doesn't make a balanced and nutritious diet any less important.

The food analogy breaks down when you try to sort out what is junk and what is nutritious culture, at least in terms of specific examples of art or music. But it works as a loose analogy for easy, indulgent pleasures/distractions/entertainment vs art that inspires us, or helps us process pain, or grants us a new perspective on life, makes us more thoughtful, etc. Or at very least the process of critically engaging vs passively consuming, no matter what the art in question might be.

As I noted before, art and entertainment are not mutually exclusive; plenty of inspiring works also seek to entertain. My position is that, as long as we are paying some mind to the latter need for self-betterment (and balance), we shouldn't feel guilty about seeking pleasure, fun, mindless entertainment, etc. It's fine to have some candy, or a honey glaze on our asparagus, as long as it doesn't dominate our diets.

Also, on soundtracks, I was recently wowed by the advance tracks for Hollow Knight: Silksong:

How Christopher Larkin manages to conjure such a subtle mix of emotions--here, stately melancholy, longing, and a burst of vulnerability--in such short pieces is remarkable. 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I've been reading Hannah Arendt's essays in Between Past and Future, particularly thinking about The Crisis in Culture. Arendt points out many of the same problems that Adorno does regarding a commercialized mass society hollowing out a culture, but all told, she's not as unrelentingly bleak as Adorno can be. 

One area that perhaps sheds a ray of hope is her argument for rejuvenating "taste" as a community standard. Arendt argues that taste is not the same as personal preference, and confusing the two leads to the societal relativism that pervades modern life. Today we often uphold the adage that "you can't argue taste," but Arendt invites us to have those conversations, in the interest of feeling out shared ideals and priorities, and articulating what pieces resonate with us and why.

I personally think that there is something very special about the "you can't argue taste" value of consumerism, something that has even helped to facilitate social progress. For instance, while W.E.B. Dubois dreamed of black art that could function as effective propaganda to win the hearts and minds of white Americans to the idea of black dignity--what ultimately proved to be a crucial outlet for such cultural reprogramming turned out to be the very music he snubbed as lowly, degrading entertainment: jazz music. Jazz in the1920s was thought to pander to white audiences, and in some respects it did, but it also allowed black musicians to project black dignity, wow white spectators with impressive musical accomplishment, and warm people's hearts with a new music that stirred them to dance. Those white audiences were simply following their impulses for easy pleasure, but in doing so they were ultimately transformed. Similarly, Reagan's neo-liberal transformation of America ironically paved the way for a more tolerant and diverse country, as market demands for compelling entertainers like Prince and Chuck D helped young audiences tune into styles and ideas that earlier generations never would have considered.

All of that is to say that, while I do think Arendt is right to argue for the rejuvenation of taste for the sake of shared cultural standards, it's a tricky thing to actually accomplish. For one, it has to be a conversation rather than a shout-down; that's something that all adolescents need to learn (and those who don't learn are much more amenable to authoritarianism as adults). Any attempt to argue for taste needs to coexist with our need for liberal pluralism. And it should also respect the role that self-interested consumerism can sometimes play in social transformation.

But still, without dismissing personal preference, it's reasonable to make arguments for the cultural value of certain pieces that move us.  We often do this to some small extent when we write about books and movies and games and such. Perhaps all Arendt's essay has done for me is highlight how it's not just reasonable to think about such arguments, but potentially important. Even if we can't change the larger cultural of society, we have the power to set standards locally, and highlight what it is we value and why.