Feb
19
Adorno and Gabler
February 19, 2021 | 1 Comment
This was an assignment I wrote for a Com class in College. It was very hard to make a concise point and it felt a lot like philosophy…. Enjoy
During this class, two perspectives that we discussed were from the Adorno and Gabler readings and the Sirois and Wasko readings. I want to take those two topics of media commodity and individual consumption and analyze how they are played out in modern times, relatively compared to the past.
The first thing I want to discuss is how Gabler points out that before the 19th-century “art” and “entertainment” was whatever the elite, rich and powerful decided it should be. This implies that what the higher-ups say is art, the lower caste will agree just due to social standing. So, if the poor and not the elite decided that they didn’t consider what the rich thought to be art and boycotted their idea, what would happen. The elite is not as numerous as the popular, meaning the majority would have a differing idea. Would the original art the elite preferred, not be considered art anymore? But art is subjective, and the people and the individual (as subjects) decide what the qualifications are to consider something art. We have no real recollection of lower caste people leaving records of what they consider art, and in modern media we are given this idea that simple people thought of nature or everyday things as art, giving the idea that “simple people prefer simple art”. A hot take considering most famous start off as poor and have to work their way up, mostly considered popular when they are old or dead.
This take can be applied to media as well, that the people, the majority, have always had the say in what becomes popular. As a community, a species, we thrive on copying with what has been done and improving on it. Adorno makes the point that modern people are more similar than ever, which I can argue is from evolution and humans need to adapt to fit into society, as belonging to society keeps the individual protected. Adorno also claims there is no uniqueness to art and society due to capitalism and big business. My reaction to that claim is that “people” as a whole have always been similar, the things that become popular in culture become popular because many people like it. While humans crave to be unique, we are the same and mostly have the same interests. In the beginning, when we first went over this reading I said I did not fault capitalism for creating this sameness, only profiting off of it, but after going through our semester, I do see where capitalism and greed work together to create an interest popular to the masses. My point being that I do see that for the most popular works, capitalist corporations do have a role in promoting the works that make the most money and then profiting off of that interest. If an entertainment, entertainer, or body of work(movie, book, tv show, musical artist) is deemed to meet the criteria of what the moguls of the entertainment industry think will go viral then those moguls or people in charge will not give money or attention to these lesser-known entertainments. This means for people that do not go out and explore the entertainment world, do not get to perceive other interests and bodies of works by lesser-known artists. However, I cannot fault capitalism for the free will of these individuals that do not explore beyond what they are given by popular media. This would demean the hard work of those that do and show disrespect to those small niches, that are everywhere. The best example I can give to simplify my statements is the Marvel movie example. Marvel has released a multitude of movies, leading to TV shows, leading to more movies, that many argue are simply popular because the first few movies had such success and the rest piggyback off of the popularity and the fans who “love” the series. Two arguments can be made, one: the fans only love the series because it is familiar and two: fans love the series because of the intricate world and character building that goes deeper with each movie. As a not so super fan, but fan none-the-less of Marvel, I may be biased but I can see both sides of the argument. Now to put it into the context of my previous statements. Marvel was greatly received when it came out, due to this it had more money put into it. The genre of western American heroes has become richer because of it. A lesser genre, let’s say Bollywood movies, would not receive the hype that a Marvel movie would receive because it would not receive as much funding, because the powers that be decided it would not gain as much popularity as anew Marvel movie. That is capitalism at work, in which I agree with Adorno. However, where I disagree is that there is still a fan base for that lesser-known genre, and if those people that loved Marvel were to try and explore outside of what they were given, a good percent of them would perhaps like those Bollywood movies as well. My point being due to free will and the natural reluctance of most people to actually explore outside of what they are shown, it can never be known for sure if Capitalism is the reason why most people in modern society have the same interest. Which circles back to my point of how modern storylines do not allow for audiences to use their own imagination, but are forced to observe stories through a preconceived storyline, but is that really the fault of the movie makers or of the audience who doesn’t demand otherwise? “The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry… characterizes the whole sphere, the individual sectors of which are themselves economically intertwined.” (Adorno)
1 Comment so far
There are definitely quite a lot of particulars like that to take into consideration. That may be a great level to convey up. I offer the ideas above as common inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you convey up where an important factor will likely be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged round issues like that, but I’m sure that your job is clearly recognized as a good game. Both boys and girls really feel the impact of just a second’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.