Joe Owens: Creating Art Within the Culture Industry: Part 1

Sometimes I like to write about arguably deep stuff that can be depressing if you think too hard about it. Today is not much different. Looked at a certain way, the idea of being truly original is as rare as winning the lottery. Everything we know and understand as “culture” is manufactured to serve a bottom line—in fact the whole phenomenon is known as The Culture Industry. Or at least that’s what Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno postulate.

Horkheimer and Adorno (or H. and A. from here on) wrote an essay they titled “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” In it, they argue that everyone is a cog in this industrial cultural machine and that those who tried to differentiate themselves by being “counterculture” are, in fact, still a part of the same economic spectacle. Hipsters, avert your eyes!

Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines form a system… Even the aesthetic manifestations of political opposites proclaim the same inflexible rhythm… All mass culture is identical… Films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce.

This sentiment is interesting in that it comes from an academic, research-based origin. It also seems incredibly relevant. How often do those involved in the independent literary industry—where of course the real art is being produce—lament the wild popularity of Twilight or the seemingly never-ending success of teen/vampire novels in general? The simple fact is that Stephanie Meyer and others writing in the same vein have tapped into a highly lucrative formula they have no qualms about milking.

Parallels exist in all forms of media. Just think about all of the music most people consider trash that still manages to make a profit, hand over fist. It’s why Nicky Minaj doesn’t have to acknowledge that Lady Gaga is already enough Lady Gaga for the masses. It’s why Nickelback has taken everything horrible about both rock and country music and somehow managed to make it even shittier. They’re simply tapping into a preexisting formula that’s proven successful.

H. and A. argue that:

[The Culture Industry’s] millions of participants demand reproduction processes, which inevitably lead to the use of standard products to meet the same needs as countless locations… The standardized forms, it is claimed, were originally derived from the needs of the consumers: that is why they are accepted with so little resistance… It is the compulsive character of a society alienated from itself… Any need which might escape the central control is repressed by that of individual consciousness.

Lets look at one sentence there, in particular: “it is the character of a society alienated from itself.”

What comes to mind here is that a good many folks scarcely know their neighbors anymore. And when I say “a good many folks” I mean “me” and not a few members of my graduate cohort at Iowa State.

This was c. 2005 but things have actually, if nothing else, migrated more toward my claim than away. I had no idea who lived in the apartments on either side of me—I probably couldn’t have picked them out of a line up. The reason for this was the instant gratification of text/instant messages and email. My friends and family may have been 200 miles away, but I could communicate with them as if I were still there with electronic devices I’d become convinced I couldn’t live without [BlackBerry, laptop, etc. (This was pre-iPhone days, for the record)].

The mentality of the public, which allegedly favors the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system, not an excuse for it.

If my reading is right, “we” favor the culture industry because it provides grass that’s greener than the that on other side of the fence. This is likely a play on “our” need for acceptance and ultimate desire to be liked by others. That’s why all the kids that went to my elementary school desperately wanted Nikes, and, if they were really lucky, they wanted—and got—Air Jordans. Wearing Nikes helped you get accepted. Air Jordans, the symbolic nature of them, earned you “cool kid” status. If you were rocking Pro Wings, you could expect a loogie on your Jordache denim jacket.

Compared to [the most powerful sectors of industry: steel, petroleum, electricity, chemicals], the culture monopolies are weak and dependent… [i.e] The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of film on banks, characterizes the whole sphere… the relentless unity of the culture industry bears witness to the emergent unity of politics. Sharp distinctions like those between A and B films, or between short stories published in magazines in different price segments, do not much reflect real differences as assist in the classification, organization, and identification of consumers. Something is provided for everyone so that no one can escape.

So holy shit, right? Our choices are basically arbitrary. Which, I mean, kind of sucks. H. and A. go on to say:

Everyone is supposed to behave spontaneously according to a “level” determined by indices and to select the category of mass product manufactured for their type… The schematic nature of this procedure is evident from the fact that the mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same. That the difference between the models of Chrysler and General Motors is fundamentally illusory is known by any child, who is fascinated by that very difference… The advantages and disadvantages debated by enthusiasts serve only to perpetuate the appearance of competition and choice. It is no different with the offerings of Warner Brothers and [MGM].

I apologize for including some much philosophy/rhetoric, but I think the information bears repeating. Not necessarily because I agree 100% with everything H. and A. are saying, but because it begs consideration, if for nothing other than to create a dialog. Human beings are fundamentally predisposed to in-/exclusion, to fostering situations where there is both an “us” and a “them” identified and sided with. We are genetically predisposed toward affiliation. It takes a concerted effort to be truly neutral.

A general consensus and popular opinion is all that is needed to determine what’s cool. Likewise, it takes a consensus and popular opinion to determine what is “uncool.” Liking something because it is deemed popular and cool by “everyone” is no different than hating something strictly on the basis that “everyone” likes it and it’s “supposed” to be cool, etc. It’s a yin and yang type relationship.

This is also probably why hipsters do not identify themselves as hipsters. Because being a hipster means you are too refined to give a shit about labels and designations. But being anti-affiliation just for the sake of being against the “mainstream” is really the same as simply going with the grain. You can’t make a statement about originality simply by claiming that popular opinion is a poor judge of coolness. In children, this behavior is symptomatic of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. As an adult, these types of social positions can be considered elitist. (Not to mention that more than a few people probably think you are an asshole.)

I’m not quite done talking about this topic but I don’t want to make this a 5,000-word column either. I’d like to come back to it next week and address how this idea pertains specifically to art since that’s what these 1,250 words have actually been leading up to—writing for an audience, intentionally creating artwork to be marketable (since true art should exist for no other reason than to be art), etc.

It is all incredibly fascinating to think about but it’s possible (probable?) that it will prove impossible to come to any kind of concrete resolution as to what it all truly means.

Stay tuned!