Mass mediated popular culture (such as television, the central focus of the article) for Adorno is no longer simply novels and popular music, but now encompasses basically "all media of artistic expression". New popular culture has grown to such an extent that it is impossible to ignore. It surrounds all of us in most aspects of our daily lives, even those living farthest from it. Popular culture follows a strict set of rules and structure (he explains that any form not following these rules will have trouble even reaching the masses). It is created to appease the masses as easy as possible (creating it so that little attention and intellect is needed on the audience's part). Adorno explains that the aura of autonomous art is now replaced with the almost-evil power of mass mediated popular culture, which allows it to integrate it's audience with the ideals of "conformity and conventionalism". Adorno describes the way in which it does this by illustrating it's "multilayered structure". Mass media, according to Adorno, is not just the actions that appear on the surface, but is comprised of numerous layers of messages all contributing to this conformitive effect. There is the messages sent to the audience by the surface or "overt" layer, which for example could be the basic plot of a movie or television show, and beyond that there is the hidden meanings which send messages (that are sometime subtly present in the overt meaning) to the audience without them being aware of it. Both, or all of the layers of meaning work together in promoting the "nefarious" ideals Adorno talks about.
In contrast with Benjamin's idea that aura is not lost, but transformed, I think Adorno's thoughts are a bit different (according to this essay). While art forms placed in different cultures/settings gain new aura (according to Benjamin), mass media seems to be created with a specific aura indoctrinating the ideals of the creator into the minds of the audience both on a conscious and subconcious level. This, inevitably leads to a homogenous mass culture, shifting the ideas and stereotypes represented in popular culture into the minds of the masses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Reading this article from 1957 really highlights how TV has changed its ways of storytelling from fifty years ago to today. He views TV as a fake realism that psychologically affects the spectator. The presence of a mass media culture in TV means shows will be more predictable, and give a feeling of safety in that regard to the spectator. Realism in mass media does not matter, he says, only its messages and what the spectator identifies with. He considers the individual a puppet of society that is manipulated through social rules. Individuals now conform to whatever the status quo is.
You can see some very status quo-like scenarios in 1950s television: the nuclear family in Leave It To Beaver or the very clear cut definition of good and evil in Western shows like Gunsmoke or Bonanza. You knew who was good and who was bad by the way they dressed sometimes. Today, TV has more ambiguous and complex characters. Our heroes have flaws, and our villains have their moments of humanity. Sometimes the good guy ends up being a traitor and other times the villain has a change of heart and redeems themselves.
Adorno says that we must face the overt and hidden meanings in these shows in order to not become "blind and passive victims." Some of the 1950s shows, like the family sitcoms, presented the stereotypes Adorno talks about in the form of an idealized family with a mom, dad, two kids, and a dog. If you see this repeated too often, the stereotype makes you less likely to change your expectations, and can even cause one to lose their sense of reality. That has thankfully changed since, but is actually repeating itself once again in a new way. The new trend is now the “dysfunctional family,” which is more appealing since it can mean more laughs and is a little more relatable since every family has some sense of dysfunctional quality.
Of course, I could be misinterpreting this reading too!
hrmm its really interesting, mass media. Because now its about something that needs to identify with everyone. The aura while maybe not lost is misconstrued then because there is access to so many people.
A television show needs to rely on stereotypes because its needs to become a plot that everyone can follow and understand.
A Newspaper article needs to be dumbed down to a 5th or an 8th grade level so its accessible for everyone to read.
It's interesting, how the argument then comes up where this mass media isn't as well thought out or artistic because it loses its individuality, however some might say it takes much more work because there is less freedom and a formula that must be followed.
An interesting rebuttal to that though, is while yes there is a formula, many "artists" can use that formula to their advantage and still get their point across.
James Dier
-Cubstar
It's interesting how art and culture shape society and vice versa. A critique of popular art is more a critique of society's values and the social and political climate. I find myself taken aback by current accepted and popular art like music and movies and I have to remind myself not to be so bitter and pretentious as Adorno and view them as a product of their time. I always appreciate past art for their relevence and I don't want to exclude myself from the ability to look back on this time with a clear and open mind. Anyway, I think most problems in our contemporary popular art stem from the fact many are not artistic expressions, rather than business endeavors. But I believe that because I believe contemporary culture is too materialistic and that corporations have too much control over public opinion.
-Laura Kazdan
Post a Comment