Adorno and Horkheimer witnessed the emergence of new forms of mass media

Adorno and Horkheimer witnessed the emergence of new forms of mass media
communication and the entertainment industry, and argued that these
developments were of profound significance. What this represented, they
argued, was the subsumption of the previously relatively autonomous realm of
culture into the market, governed by instrumental logic. They use the term
culture industry to describe the commodification of cultural forms that had
resulted from the growth of monopoly capitalism. The culture industry, they
argue, plays a central role in cementing its audience to the status quo, and had
transformed culture itself into an ideological medium of domination. However,
culture had not always served this role, rather the meaning and function of art
changes historically. In their work, they contrast the emancipatory potential of
what they term genuine or autonomous art, and the products of the culture
industry, which play the opposite role. By uncovering the social conditions that
gave rise to both forms of art, they claim to reveal the impact that
commodification has had upon art itself, and hence on society as a whole and
our very consciousness.
communication and the entertainment industry, and argued that these
developments were of profound significance. What this represented, they
argued, was the subsumption of the previously relatively autonomous realm of
culture into the market, governed by instrumental logic. They use the term
culture industry to describe the commodification of cultural forms that had
resulted from the growth of monopoly capitalism. The culture industry, they
argue, plays a central role in cementing its audience to the status quo, and had
transformed culture itself into an ideological medium of domination. However,
culture had not always served this role, rather the meaning and function of art
changes historically. In their work, they contrast the emancipatory potential of
what they term genuine or autonomous art, and the products of the culture
industry, which play the opposite role. By uncovering the social conditions that
gave rise to both forms of art, they claim to reveal the impact that
commodification has had upon art itself, and hence on society as a whole and
our very consciousness.
Adorno and Horkheimer witnessed the emergence of new forms of mass media
communication and the entertainment industry, and argued that these
developments were of profound significance. What this represented, they
argued, was the subsumption of the previously relatively autonomous realm of

culture into the market, governed by instrumental logic. They use the term
culture industry to describe the commodification of cultural forms that had
resulted from the growth of monopoly capitalism. The culture industry, they
argue, plays a central role in cementing its audience to the status quo, and had
transformed culture itself into an ideological medium of domination. However,
culture had not always served this role, rather the meaning and function of art
changes historically. In their work, they contrast the emancipatory potential of
what they term genuine or autonomous art, and the products of the culture
industry, which play the opposite role. By uncovering the social conditions that
gave rise to both forms of art, they claim to reveal the impact that
commodification has had upon art itself, and hence on society as a whole and
our very consciousness.
Adorno and Horkheimer witnessed the emergence of new forms of mass media
communication and the entertainment industry, and argued that these
developments were of profound significance. What this represented, they
argued, was the subsumption of the previously relatively autonomous realm of
culture into the market, governed by instrumental logic. They use the term
culture industry to describe the commodification of cultural forms that had
resulted from the growth of monopoly capitalism. The culture industry, they
argue, plays a central role in cementing its audience to the status quo, and had
transformed culture itself into an ideological medium of domination. However,
culture had not always served this role, rather the meaning and function of art
changes historically. In their work, they contrast the emancipatory potential of
what they term genuine or autonomous art, and the products of the culture
industry, which play the opposite role. By uncovering the social conditions that
gave rise to both forms of art, they claim to reveal the impact that
commodification has had upon art itself, and hence on society as a whole and
our very consciousness.
Adorno and Horkheimer witnessed the emergence of new forms of mass media
communication and the entertainment industry, and argued that these
developments were of profound significance. What this represented, they
argued, was the subsumption of the previously relatively autonomous realm of
culture into the market, governed by instrumental logic. They use the term
culture industry to describe the commodification of cultural forms that had
resulted from the growth of monopoly capitalism. The culture industry, they
argue, plays a central role in cementing its audience to the status quo, and had

transformed culture itself into an ideological medium of domination. However,

culture had not always served this role, rather the meaning and function of art
changes historically. In their work, they contrast the emancipatory potential of
what they term genuine or autonomous art, and the products of the culture
industry, which play the opposite role. By uncovering the social conditions that
gave rise to both forms of art, they claim to reveal the impact that
commodification has had upon art itself, and hence on society as a whole and
our very consciousness.
A central tenet of Adornos argument is the idea that under certain social
conditions, art can provide an alternate vision of reality. He argues that
autonomous art has the capacity to highlight the inequalities and irrationality of
the status quo, by presenting an ideal vision of what mankind can aspire
towards. As such it has an emancipatory character. The radical character of
autonomous art stems not from its content but from its form. Therefore unlike
other cultural critics they argued that the most radical form of art is not that
which contains a political message, because this requires an attempt to work
within the existing realm of ideas to demand change. Rather the most radical art
is that which compels change through its form.
Art, Adorno argued, is only autonomous when it is not subject to specific
demands and is not produced for any purpose other than its functionlessness.
In the era of monopoly capitalism he believed that new techniques of production
and distribution of art had meant that the free circulation of cultural products
that had characterised the bourgeois era had come to an end. Rather production
and circulation of cultural goods had come under the monopolistic control of the
culture industry. This represented the triumph of instrumental reason over the
role of culture. Rather than being produced for the inherent value of the piece
itself, which for Adorno lay entirely in its lack of use value its purposelessness
art had now been almost entirely commoditised. Consequently, it had lost its
autonomy and with it its critical potential. No longer free from the demands of
the market the gap between art and reality which is the basis of its critical
potential had been undermined, and art had become a means by which to cement
mass audiences to the status quo. In their critique of the culture industry Adorno
and horkheimer describe the way in which culture becomes a tool for
domination.

Adorno believed that the rise of the culture industry has resulted in the
standardisation and rationalisation of cultural form, and that this in turn had
weakened, atrophied and destroyed the capacity of the individual to think and
act in a critical and autonomous way. He argued that standardisation emerges
largely as a result of the capacity of those with power to control the production
of cultural goods to employ positivistic methods in an attempt to formulate a
scientific measurement of peoples precise tastes and expectations, and in
doing so increase profitability. As the culture industry develops this process has
become more specialised, leading to the emergence of a very precisely targeted
hierarchical range of goods aimed precisely to align with consumers
preconceived expectations of the product itself so none may
escape. Horkheimer and Adorno focused on Hollywood as a particularly glaring
example of this phenomenon. In its attempt to produce a profit, Hollywood
pumps out an endless stream of movies, all classified according to the exact
tastes of particular groups, ensuring the viewer has to exert next to no mental
energy in understanding the film. Whilst there are differences in the content of
each film, these differences amount to merely pseudo-individualism, that serves
to mask the fact that the style and form of the film is identical to all others; all
differences, such as variations in plot, character type etc, are simply superficial
imitations of individuality that mask the fundamental uniformity of all its
products. Thus studios spend enormous amounts promoting bigger better films,
new bands, a new star, but rather than these differences in fact it is the
underlying structural uniformity which is the really meaningful content of the
film.
Standardised art does nothing to stimulate critical social reflection. Rather, it
creates standardised responses. Unlike authentic art it doesnt challenge our
conception of existing social norms and reality, but rather reinforces them. The
viewer is presented with a smooth and comfortable spectacle that requires no
deep concentration, and elicits no genuine attempt to criticise the art. Everything
has been pre-classified by the production team and the audience has no choice
but to become a passive unreceptive recipient of the art. This process is
reinforced by the incessant and deliberate incorporation of cues within the
works themselves, which direct us and leave us with little doubt as to the
correct reaction. A TV show will contain canned laughter, a movie sad music,
and so on. Thus programmes watch for their audiences and popular music hears
for those who listen. (Held 96).

By repeatedly supplying formulaic products that vary only very little in their
underlying form, and which are explicitly designed with the aim of eliciting a
particular response requiring minimal mental effort, the culture industry serves
to create dependence upon its own products by making us fearful of anything
genuinely new or innovative. It is psychoanalysis in reverse. Rather than
challenging our repetitive and destructive patterns of thought and behaviour, it
serves to reinforce these patterns. For this reason, Adorno and Horkheimer
rejected the term mass culture in favour of the term culture industry, which it
was hoped would highlight the extent to which the cultural products that we
consume, and the demand that gives rise to them, are imposed upon us from
above, rather than arising spontaneously from the masses.
Unlike autonomous art, which was able to main some autonomy from the
market place, today art is entirely a commodity. Thus the autonomy which
allowed art to maintain its distance from reality has been eradicated, and its
production is determined by need. Consequently, art is no longer able to
maintain any distance from reality. Rather it creates art that is indistinguishable
from reality. This is the new ideology of the culture industry. Adorno and
horkheimer argue that the culture industry represents a new form of ideological
domination. In that past, ideology had been dependent upon defining society as
it is not, and thus could be subjected to a critique in its own terms, for example
is the market just based upon the definition of justice provided by capitalism
itself, today culture was ideological precisely because it depicted reality exactly
as it is. The culture industrys products do not serve to challenge our existing
normative assumptions. Rather they reinforce the status quo by depicting it as
entirely natural and unquestionable. This is a form of pseudo-realism, as it
prevents critical analysis of the existing social and economic order. It serves to
create a sense of fatalism and an acceptance of the existing order as
unquestionable. It passifies any social discontent by presenting not a picture of
an alternative reality, but an alternative picture of the existing reality (Craib).
Adorno and Horkheimer believed that a key function of the culture industry was
to extinguish the revolutionary potential of the masses, by providing relief from
the stresses of life under capitalism through brief and surface level distractions.
However it cannot provide genuine happiness, only short-lived and meaningless
pleasure. Real happiness comes from the challenge of decoding complex work
and the intellectual stimulation that this provides; the culture industry by

contrast provides only a formulaic and predictable escape form reality, and one
which stays within existing social and artistic boundaries.
Adorno and Horkheimer witnessed the emergence of new forms
of mass media Adorno and Horkheimer witnessed the
emergence of new forms of mass media communication and the
entertainment industry, and argued that these developments
were of profound significance. What this represented, they
argued, was the subsumption of the previously relatively
autonomous realm of culture into the market, governed by
instrumental logic. They use the term