Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Culture industry in a modern setting
Theory of culture industry
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Culture industry in a modern setting
“Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” is a chapter in Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s book “Dialectic of Enlightenment” it goes onto discus the conflicts presented by the “culture industry.” Adorno states that the culture industry is a main phenomenon of late capitalism, encompassing all products from Hollywood films, to advertisements, and even extending to musical compositions. Adorno is very deliberate in noting the term “culture industry” over “mass culture” this was done to specifically distinguish, that it is not to be understood as something which spontaneously stems from the masses themselves. Products of the culture economy take on the appearance of artwork but are in fact dependant on industry and economy, meaning that they are subjected to the interests of money and power and producing a profit “The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry” . To Adorno the production of art and consumerism is driven and shaped by the logic of capitalist rationality, meaning consumer products are created on the basis of whatever will sell best. ...
In Highbrow, Lowbrow, Levine argues that a distinction between high and low culture that did not exist in the first half of the 19th century emerged by the turn of the century and solidified during the 20th century, and that despite a move in the last few decades toward a more ecumenical interpretation of “culture,” the distinction between high art and popular entertainment and the revering of a canon of sacred, inalterable cultural works persists. In the prologue Levine states that one of his central arguments is that concepts of cultural boundaries have changed over the period he treats. Throughout Highbrow, Lowbrow, Levine defines culture as a process rather than a fixed entity, and as a product of interactions between the past and the present.
Marx uses the term ‘postcapitalist appropriation’ to denote not theory, but neotheory. However, Lyotard’s analysis of constructivism holds that the media is part of the collapse of art.
RESUMEN: Adorno and Horkheimer adopted the notion of the fetishism of commodities for the analysis of art and culture. Material, physical goods are not identical with symbolic ones. In spite of being predominant, the culture industry cannot be taken as the prototype for all analyses of culture. One cannot reduce all cultural products in the market economy to market products. The plurality of artistic and cultural practices found in countries such as Brazil calls into question the Frankfurtian framework.
In existential thought it is often questioned who decides what is right and what is wrong. Our everyday beliefs based on the assumption that not everything we are told may be true. This questioning has given light to the subjective perspective. This means that there is a lack of a singular view that is entirely devoid of predetermined values. These predetermined values are instilled upon society by various sources such as family to the media. On a societal level this has given rise to the philosophy of social hype. The idea of hype lies in society as the valuation of something purely off someone or some group of people valuing it. Hype has become one of the main driving forces behind what society considers to be good art and how successful artists can become while being the main component that leads to a wide spread belief, followed by its integration into subjective views. Its presence in the art world propagates trends, fads, and limits what we find to be good art. Our subjective outlook on art is powered by society’s feedback upon itself. The art world, high and low, is exploited by this social construction. Even when objective critique is the goal subjective remnants can still seep through and influence an opinion. Subjective thought in the art world has been self perpetuated through regulated museums, idolization of the author, and general social construction because of hype.
The issue of the relationship between the mass media and the popular culture has always been a controversial issue in social sciences. The political economists insist on the role of the media industry in the creation of this phenomenon of the twentieth century. Though, advocates such as John Fiske, argue that popular culture is actually the creation of the populous itself, and is independent of the capitalist production process of the communication sector. Basing his argument on the immense interpretive power of the people, Fiske believes that the audience is able to break all the indented meanings within a media message. He also believes- by giving new meanings to that specific message they can oppose the power block that is trying to impose its ideology to the public. Consequently, this anarchistic activity of the audience creates the popular culture as a defence mechanism. Even when we accept Fiske’s ideas, we can not disregard the manipulative power of the media and its effects on cultural and social life.
With the rise of industrialization, globalization, and mass production, the manufacturing productivity has been dramatically increased and accordingly the availability of consumer goods. And with the rise of the mass media, various products have been targeted on broad groups of consumers. Consumerism, which is propelled by a system of mass production and high levels of consumption, has been one of the themes in art works from twentieth century till now.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor Adorno. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” in Dialectics of Enlightenment. New York: Seabury Press, 1972: 120-167.
In The Political of Cultural Work (2007), Banks joins the debate on the ‘art-commerce’ relation by focusing on cultural work in the micro-level and addressing the importance of space and place, explores the possibility of alternatives creativity under the capitalist context, and further suggests to considering the political and social implication of cultural work.
The concept of mass culture emerged as a philosophical exploration of the question of modernity in relation to individual identities and individuality. As the society progressed from its traditional existence to a modern state, numerous advancements were realized that drastically changed the outlook of the society and its influence on an individual and individual thinking. One of the most important factors that have been an influence in the advancement of modernity is the mass media phenomenon (Landgraf 25). In fact, very few would contend that the institutions within the mass media franchise are crucial aspects of contemporary politics and philosophy. However, philosophers like Nietzsche and Karl Marx had the contention that the mass media had to be considered in light of its effects to the values and institutions of modern societies. Nietzsche’s criticisms is based on the general idea that the values and institutions of modern day society oppress creativity and bodily energies and limit the ability if human beings to function as individuals. This in turn blocks a generation of stronger individuals from emerging in a society that is now characterized by vigor. Friedrich Nietzsche critically appraised the modern age and developed one of the foremost sustainable critiques of mass culture and society, bureaucratic discipline, the state and regimentation. This led to the production of fresh perspectives which later deeply influenced discourse about modernity.
Adorno found this position to be naïve. As Richard Wolin describes, Adorno “criticizes Benjamin’s unqualified and uncritical acceptance of technically reproduced art as well as the essay’s complementary rejection of all autonomous art as being inherently ‘counterrevolutionary.’” Benjamin does not exactly ignore the control and manipulations of what Adorno and Max Horkheimer would later, in The Dialectic of Enlightenment, call the “culture industry.” He argues, for instance, that there can be “no political advantage” from the mechanical reproduction of film “until film has liberated itself from the fetters of capitalist exploitation” (113). However, the space Benjamin devotes to this threat is much more modest than the space he gives to its revolutionary qualities, which he finds intrinsic in technology itself. An example of this faith in the intrinsic mechanisms of technologies of reproduction is his concept of “reception in distraction”: “A person who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it; he enters into the work, just as, according to legend, a Chinese painter entered his completed painting while beholding it. By contrast, the distracted masses absorb the work of art into themselves” (119). For Benjamin, film is like architecture: we come to understand it “not so much by way of attention as by way of habit” and “in the form of casual noticing, rather than attentive observation”
“According to, Stuart Hall, “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” from Media, Culture and Society, Raymond Williams and E.P Thompson summarize about the way they saw culture, they refer it to the way of life and saw mainstream media as the main role in capitalist society. “Williams says that, his perspective and ideas are referred to culture as to social practice, he saw “culture as a whole way of life” and as to structuralism that makes the concept of
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer fled Germany during the Second World War, where they were exiled in America. Once there, they were exposed to American entertainment, and generated the now famous theory of the ‘culture industry’. The pair saw the media products of 1940s America as identical, all built around similar ideas with no individual creativity to distinguish them from one another. This is what constituted the culture industry, a production line in which media products are sent out one after another, none of which challenge the status quo, instead simply supporting it. When we look at this theory in our current media climate, it is clear that the revolutionary works of online streaming services such as Netflix have fundamentally challenged notions of what we know as the culture industry, through
Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries : contracts between art and commerce / Richard E. Caves. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press.
“Culture” is a term that over the years, has taken many forms, served many purposes and has been defined in a variety of contexts. At the rise of the industrial era, inhabitants of rural areas began to migrate to cities, thus starting urbanization. As this new era began to unfold, urbanization, mass production, and modernization became key ingredients in the transformation of culture. As more people became literate and the production of mass media such as magazines, pamphlets, newspapers etc. increased, many had the option and desire to identify collectively – popular culture began to rise. Popular or “mass” culture can be described as a “dynamic, revolutionary force, breaking down the old barriers of class, tradition, taste, and dissolving
The purpose of this essay is to firstly explain what John Fiske means by ‘popular culture lies not in the production of commodities so much as the productive use of industrial commodities’ (Fiske, J. 1990 p.28). Secondly this essay will go on to compare Fiske’s interpretation of popular culture to MacDonald’s theory of mass culture.