Our discussions of space reminded me of my experiences visiting the “Rothko Chapel: outside of Houston.  The interior space pictured below is in a building specifically designed to view some of Mark Rothko’s later works (following the artists wishes). Note the contrast to the typical Museum/Gallery experience.  The building is referred to as a chapel but it is not affiliated with any religion.

     I remember being impressed with the effect of the space more than the architecture that created the space, The scale and shape of the interior combined with Rothko’s rather dark horizontal compositions seemed to promote reflection and introspection, decreasing kinetic physical energy while increasing potential spiritual energy, which contrasts strongly with the typical environment of awe and spectacle one might encounter at a museum gallery exhibit.   See comments related to the Rothko Chapel posted on a blog sight.

“Silence is so accurate.”
-Mark Rothko
_________________________________________
I recently came across my journal response to the Rothko Chapel in Houston, TX. The words and image don’t do the in-person experience justice to any degree, but I thought I’d post it here. Rothko is the man. :O)

________________________________________

May 9, 2008
Absolute and utter silence.

I can hear every knee crack, every crinkling of paper and every breath.

///

After awhile, everything blends. Breath, steps, movement- all flowing together into this

slow,

tragic,

fluid movement.

The room itself is breathing quietly. The paintings that at first were flat and motionless have started breathing- almost painfully. A very shallow breath and a very deep, ragged breath at the same time.

Looking closely, you see the hand of the artist. You see “wounds” on the canvas. Areas of imperfection. Areas that make the surface very real.

///

Watching people interact with the room is such a beautiful thing too. People are open and free and willing to express themselves in an environment that is comfortable, soulful, deep, and meaningful.

What an amazing place for contemplation or prayer or emotion…

Rothko’s statement “I paint big to be intimate.” really comes to life here.

You can’t help but slow down.

Breathe.

Stop.

The design of the building is so obviously perfect for these paintings.

Even the doorways, and the shadows and the light that they present, add to the space.

The space is both organic and rigid.

The lighting from the ceiling is almost other-worldly. Dramatic. Soaking the top of the room and barely touching the floor.

///

The room is very much about

Light/dark contrast

Breathing easy and a sense of struggle at the same time.

I think it’s about that place that is so dark and so real.

A place we don’t often let ourselves go.

 link to blogsite:

http://www.zimbio.com/pilot?ZURL=%2FModern%2BArt%2Farticles%2F23%2FRothko%2BFans%2BMust%2BSee%2BRothko%2BSymposium%2BTate&URL=http%3A%2F%2Foneswelleblog.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00e54ef16809883300e553d645a38834-pi

References

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline on a Theory of Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; in French 1972) 

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). ‘The Forms of Capital’, in J.G. Richardson (ed.). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York: Greenwood Press), 241-58

Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Danto, A. (1999). ‘Bourdiue on Art: Field and Innovation’, in R. Shusterman (ed.), Bourdieu: A Critical Reader.(Malden, MA, USA Blackwell Publishers)¸214- 19.

Harker, R., Cheleen Mahar and Chris Wilkes. (1990). An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu - The Practice of Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Pres, Inc.

Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London, Routledge.

Vienne, V. (2001) Something to Dresire: Essays on Design.  New York, Graphis Inc.

The Marco Polo Syndrome

While it is would be difficult to dispute the Phenomena of Euro-centrism, or perhaps more accurately in the realm of the art world Manhattan-centrism, it seems to me this academic observation is trumped by the related effects of globalization and that trends of consumption effect aesthetics at every level.  Aesthetic awareness and self-awareness becomes that of the dominant western perspective, which all else is discussed and considered relative to. It seems to me that the aesthetics of the West have become dominant through global consumption without necessarily considering deeper or historic effects of euro-centrism.

Regarding All-Owning Spectatorship

Trinh T. Minh-Ha’s writing on the All-Owning Spectatorship seems to elaborate (expound, lucubrate) on the concept of context and relative meaning along with the altered perceptions that result from relative positions of power. 

Mubridge Photo Study

See link regarding Muybridge and his “scientific” photo studies.

http://www.kingston.gov.uk/em1053.pdf

While reading Adrian Piper’s essay, A Video Installation Project, my mind was storing several questions - most regarding it’s worthiness to be considered art, such as; 

Does the fact that something that is created might provoke thought qualify it as art?

Is oratory art? How about when the aesthetic effects of rhythm and/or cadence are added?

Does the act of making a video recording of these provocative thoughts and then presenting them on a monitor in a public space qualify as art?  Does the quality of the video matter?

But apart from these questions and the tiresome arguments they conjured, I also thought about my children.

My wife Christine was born in Laos and came to America nearly thirty years ago when her mother escaped the then communist controlled Laos to bring Christine and her three siblings to America.  Christine’s father was killed serving American interests in Laos (now sometimes referred to as “the Secret War”) during the American/Vietnam war.

My wife has been asked to identify her racial heritage on numerous application forms for work and school, given choices such as; Laotian, Asian, Other-Asian (as opposed to Chinese-American) or simply “non-white” as the case may be.  I grew up only abstractly aware of the privaledges I may havbe as a white male, but I have been shaken into awareness by witnessing several instances of discrimination, bigotry, condescension and other forms of meanness and stupidity directed towards my wife, her family and now my family (yes, right here in Lafayette. Indiana) and so, the question of how my children will choose to identify themselves and for what reasons, strikes particularly close to my heart.  Adrian Pipers questions are provocative on many levels, even with out the declaration of the likely possibilities of African blood in the readers lineage.

It is interesting to realize that racism is primarily a visual event — the chances of one being subjected to discrimination and bigotry has more to do with the Pantone color match of your skin or the texture of your hair then your actual heritage, beliefs or behavior.  And identification of yourself as “non-white” may have more effect on one’s self perception as belonging to “the other” and not belonging to the group of power and privilege.

The Mythology of Difference, Charles A. Wright, Jr.’s castigation of the Whitney Museum of American Art’s 1993 Biennial.

Although Wright’s main objective, may have been to deride the curators of the 1993 Biennial for duplicitously positioning the exhibition as being concerned with “identity and community” while actually reinforcing the straight white male power structure status quo (inclusion does not equate to parity), in so doing Wright also raised questions regarding; the implied social responsibilities of the curator, the role of art museums may play in our culture, and even broaches the question of defining Art in a broader sense.

While I believe Wright makes a legitimate observation regarding the failure of the exhibit to break the historic domination of the straight white male in the art world, I also believe his dismissal of other critics’ concerns regarding the aesthetic value of the show and with questions regarding politics versus art rather than the power dynamic he wishes to focus on, clarifies the differences between what may be an ideal concept of art and the practical implementation of art in today’s society.  To believe that an institution like the Whitney Museum of American Art can divorce itself from the political, social and economic dynamics that it is a part of is unrealistic. While some may argue that this would be a laudable goal, others may say that especially in the case of an exhibit like the Biennial, that the museum should act as a mirror of the current state of the arts and the society they are a part of. 

[following is Mark Stevens' review of the Whitney 2006 Biennial: Day for Night, Whitney Museum of American Art. Through May 28. I felt Stevens' comments that I cited above related to my reaction to Wright's essay, but most of Stevens' review may ractually elate more directly to Jameson's ideas.]

Radical Meek

Another Whitney Biennial that was supposed to break the mold turns into a solid, stolid survey.

by Mark Stevens, March 19, 2006 

From Francesco Vezzoli’s Trailer for a Remake of Gore Vidal’s Caligula, 2005.  

(Photo: Mathias Vriens/Courtesy of the Whitney Museum)

(This photo accompanied Stevens’ article — it really does not have much to do with what was written, but it probably got your attention)

As part of his installation for the “Whitney Biennial 2006: Day for Night,” Urs Fischer cut enormous, gaping holes into a gallery wall, raggedly framing other works of art. Viewers tend to creep toward the holes, wondering if they should step into the breach. (They eventually do so, smiling like the boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar.) According to the advance word, the Biennial’s European curators, Chrissie Iles and Philippe Vergne, would also break down walls, reframe art, and push into new territory. This Biennial would be the first with a title. Its perspective would be global. It could be revolutionary.

Well . . . the walls are still standing.

The 2006 Biennial, like other Biennials, is an art browse that will please, bore, titillate, fascinate, and dumbfound viewers. It has more focus than usual—and more foreign inflections—but not to a revolutionary degree. Its stated theme, “Day for Night,” an elegant riff on the title of François Truffaut’s movie, refers to the way filmmakers can shoot night scenes during the day with certain dark filters. The metaphor is so broadly suggestive, however, that it could be applied to almost any art. In fact, this Biennial is conservative at heart—not politically, of course, but artistically. It embodies the well-worn conventions of our time. It has a familiar glare even though some work is by unknown artists. I found little that was truly dusky, dreamy, or what the curators like to call “liminal.”

That’s not intended as a criticism. One of the jobs of a Biennial is to report, much as the Salons once did in Paris, upon what’s fashionable in the studios. Chilly, joyless conceptual art is common now; this Biennial reflects that. It’s the job of a critic, however, to report that this kind of work—naturally presented as fresh by an art world that wants to think well of itself—has become stale. We live in a period of conceptual mannerism, one steeped in academic practice. The ideas of Duchamp, Beuys, and Warhol, exciting in their time, are rarely being challenged or advanced in a significant way. They’re just being diddled with. The same goes for political art, which as now practiced is typically a variant of conceptual art. Consider the Whitney’s reworking of the “Peace Tower,” which artists erected in the streets of Los Angeles in 1966 to protest the Vietnam War. Not only is this one an academic retread, but it’s been placed in the basement courtyard. The museum put the tower in a hole.

Earnest, well-meaning art is usually boring. Self-righteous art is worse. Political art must first be good art; otherwise, the denunciations will interest mainly their proud creator. If a work is essentially a one-liner, for example, it must be a great line. Francesco Vezzoli’s trailer for Caligula succeeds because it’s not preachy but, instead, a scabrously funny send-up of moral corruption. Florian Maier-Aichen takes photographs of sublime American landscapes, then suffuses them with bloodred tones. A simple but memorable idea. In RWBs, Liz Larner creates a tangled mass of red, white, and blue tubing. Here, the message—America is a wreck—becomes too obvious. Perhaps artists should leave the flag shtick alone for a decade or so. Jasper Johns, whose flag paintings from the fifties were indeed liminal, started something that looks like it may never end.

Many contemporary artists regard America as a wasteland. Nothing new in that outlook. They make art with odd materials and bits of cultural flotsam. We’ve seen that for decades. Playing with iconic Hollywood remains popular, as does spoofing consumer culture. Stop the presses? You could argue that, well, the old genre of landscape painting also evolved over centuries and that, in the Biennial, various ideas are developed in new ways. That’s possible, but I don’t see much that escapes the “school of” perspective—as in “school of Warhol.” Certain old hats are worn at a slant. Many artists, for example, play with the idea of artistic celebrity, corruption, and identity; in one instance, a group has invented a fictional artist named Reena Spaulings. But Warhol remains the master of this subject. Too many artists have ideas instead of intuitions. We could use more introverts.

 My favorite works at the Biennial did not billboard a message but, instead, had a perplexing quality that does suggest “Day for Night.” Mark Bradford makes large collages out of the conventional detritus, yet his pictures also convey in a startling way the tawdry but twinkling glitter of Los Angeles. Pierre Huyghe’s film about penguins, Antarctica, and Central Park is a surreal dream that I can’t shake out of my head. Cameron Jamie’s film about a bizarre Christmas ritual in rural Austria—costumed men who look like the offspring of Bigfoot and a Wookiee go around mugging ordinary people—is set to heavy-metal music and has a hard-to-figure perspective. It could be funny, it could be monstrous, it could be idiotic, it could be intelligent. Sometimes Rome needs a barbarian.

While there seemed to be a more clear connection with Freud’s ideas in regards to fine art — both in the motivation to create and the ways that fine art may be interpreted, the connection to industrial design seems a bit less direct

In industrial design, the process is very often a team effort and the clients needs may actually drive the process more than the needs or desires of the ultimate user the product, for example, a manufacturing cost target may supersede added design features. But I did find relevance in the discussion of the importance of the unconscious in the workings of our mind, in that this provides an explanation for behavior I’ve observed in the process of developing new products.

Freud’s ideas stress the power and importance of what may be subconscious and/or unconscious, which is particularly interesting when considering the typical design process in which the process and factors that drive the design process are highly conscious while many reasons to select or purchase a product are not.  Likewise, a significant portion of the satisfaction a user receives from a product may be subconscious or unconscious.  I’ve witnessed the demonstration of these principles participating in user research related to new product development and design validation.  Despite the popular concentration on designing for users emotions and/or experience that is currently in vogue, most research aimed at discovering “emotional data” rely on the users articulation of these emotions – more often than not, users have trouble putting their feelings into words possibly because the underlying basis for these feelings may not be tenable through conscious thought.  I’ve seen researchers attempt to deal with the perceived problem of articulation by asking questions in several slightly different ways and then trying to correlate the results, or even ask users to respond by matching imagery rather than using words.  While both of these approaches may address the difficulty users may have in dealing with the problems of language, they may not be exposing the more powerful underlying reasons for a reaction- the subconscious underlying basis for emotions.  Perhaps free association - borrowing from dream analysis may be a more fruitful exercise. 

Psychologists are in fact involved in marketing efforts to make products more desirable to consumers. The concepts of the Pleasure Principle are certainly used in generating product propaganda to increase sales, promising a range of pleasures that ownership and use of a product may bring, usually by associating product ownership or use with increased sexual atttractiveness – but perhaps a better understanding of unconscious issues could be used for non capitalist motives.  For example, if the rapport between a product and its user could be enhanced, or, changed to the point that the user would be moved to repair a product rather than to replace it, this may  And, certainly subconscious connections are partially responsible for product semantics, and the power of symbolic archetypes that play an important role in the response a user has upon first encounter with a product.

Whereas in previous readings I sometimes found my self searching for relevance to design, this was not the case with Guy Dobord’s The Society of the Spectacle. Designers are both facilitators and victims of the Spectacle. Designers are actively engaged in the Spectacle

Considering Degrees of Influence of the Spectacle and the Creation of Aesthetic Classes in Design

It may be somewhat antithetical to the concept of the pervasiveness or totality of what Dobord refers to as the Spectacle in the consumptive world of modern capitalism, but

In regards to the influence of the Spectacle on design, it may be valuable to consider degrees of influence.  As an industrial designer temporal aspects are considered when determining an appropriate approach to a particular design problem. For instance, an aesthetic appropriate for a consumer product with a relatively short product life cycle may be much more influenced by the Spectacle than would a piece of medical equipment, which may have an expected product life of ten years. Designers often refer to aspects of influence of the spectacle as trendiness.

Aesthetic categories relative to the Spectacle has been recognized by others (at least in concept but with different nomenclature).  For instance Tönis Käo in his contribution to Emerging Paradigm: Design and Culture (proceedings from Design Zentrum, Nordheim Westfalen, 2000).  In an essay entitled “Who is to Design the Globalization Machine?” Käo  claims that:

The aesthetic taste preferences of the masses are produced by the transformation of dreamworlds rather than through the communication systems of architecture, design or fine art.  The mass media play an important role …”

Regarding the effects of this dreamworld dynamic With respect to design Käo identified three form defining categories:

Category 1 Design following the Principle of technical/functional determinism (form is determined by function – technology dominating form)

Category 2 Design following the principle of ethical/functional determinism.  “Good form” stands at the center of this design approach whose exponents are convinced that “good form” is best not only in functional but also aesthetic terms.* (to achieve this balance, proponents believe functionless elements like ornamentation are to be avoided, a Modern approach)

*>Category 3 Design following the principle of stylish/aesthetical determinism.  Orientation and legitimation are no longer the content of design, but effect of form and appearance.   Of course the sought-after effects may change from day to day following the prevailing trends, looks or fashions. Design conforms to what is “in” at the actual moment.  Thus one might actually speak of “prevailing taste’s dictatorship” concerning this design approach. 

Käo goes on to provide some examples, including the Memphis design approach, which Käo claims was “a mere media success”.

Relationship to the Spectacle Creating Class Differentiation

The Spectacle defines the mass market aesthetic which connotes class delineation for the masses, whereas the aesthetics of bourgeois and higher class aesthetics tend to have a more historical basis.  Interestingly, as Käo hinted at regarding the mere media success of the Memphis movement, perhaps each class has its own Spectacle.

[*For a critique of “good design” read Veronique Vienne’s chapter entitled; “What’s Bad About Good Design?” in her book; Something to Desired: Essays on Design (Graphis Inc, New York, 2001)]

Regarding Broader Implications of Debord

For me Marx provides some tools for critical thought, like toothpicks used to prop open my eyelids assuring that my eyes remain open when living in our modern capitalist reality, but Marxist principles fall short.  The call to action may get you to revolution, but then what?

Revolution! O.K… Now what do we do?

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating” is how Merrifield begins his observations of the demonstrations in France in 1968, 6 months after the publication of Debord’s work.  The demostrations were obviously influenced by Debord’s writings, perhaps instigated by them.  Paris walls had passages from

The Society of Spectacle scrolled on them. Obviously, Debord’s insights had been a factor in this revolutionary act.

While Merrifield saw the demonstrations in France as validation of  Debord’s concepts, I perceived the results as a demonstration of limitations in the practical application of Marxist principles.

Merrifield recounted that students had taken over Paris streets, workers took over factories — spontaneous revolution just as Debord had advocated, but as Merrifield also points out, as quickly as things erupted, they were repressed – “There was apparently no other side to break through to.” The elation of revolution diminishes quickly when it hits the fan of practical viability.

Debord’s proclamation that “workers, students, activists and malcontents must somehow join hands, coordinate organization and unleash militant spontaneity …streets would become the stage and the stake …” to cause harm to the spectacle.  These proclamations not only foreshadowed the events in France in 1968, but also Seattle in November of 1999, in which students, Greens, Labor Unions, disenfranchised and a few anarchists, formed a coalition of revolutionaries, to collectively protest a gathering of the World Trade Organization (WTO)  (see links to video spectacle on YouTube below) 

WTO Demonstration in Seattle, 1999

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JXPIBsxdk0&feature=related

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CsDsFHDBPs&feature=related

At the same time, similar demonstrations were occurring in other cities across America and the world.  I lived in Madison, Wisconsin and participated in demonstrations regarding the activities of the WTO during this period.  Madison has always been a hotbed of activism, but the reaction to the WTO created solidarity among previously disparate groups that I hadn’t witnessed before – as in Seattle, student activists were joined by members of the Green party, labor unions and other concerned citizens. 

Many of us were creative entrepreneurs, designers, writers, artists, etc., some leaving jobs in which they were “making money for the corporations” to a much more satisfying and empowering means of benefitting from the rewards of their own skills and creativity. Of course creative entrepreneurship may not be a viable solution for the masses, but more entrepreneurism in general may provide a realistic alternative to modern hyper-capitalism.  Imagine a world with fewer franchised goods and services — seems like a good step to shattering a bit of the Spectacle.

Check out the Burning Man Festival as a demonstration of Debord’s concept of Counter- Spectacle  http://www.burningman.com/whatisburningman/about_burningman/mission.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoUqOnyS_L8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u0FrJyDMfs&feature=related

Reading through Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, I found myself attempting to his wherewithal as much as I was attempting to gain an understanding of his perspective.  Here’s a guy who in Angela McRobbie’s words “occupied an ambivalent place in cultural studies”, and Simon During (her editor) adds that Benjamin “came to have almost no audience”… but he’s important enough that 68 years after his death his work is still being reprinted and considered worthy of inclusion in a Critical Thinking class in well respected university. Despite the number of areas one could take issue with Benjamin; use of faulty syllogism which at times appears to have wrapped itself around a linguistic axle, use of broad general statements about concepts that by nature have multiple forms and manifestations (like the effects on Art of technological reproducibility for instance), and his somewhat luddite reaction to new processes (particularly film), in his efforts to address technological reproduction’s effect on Art, Benjamin has called attention to creation and dynamics of mass culture (which may include art), the relevance of which increases with the effects of globalization.  

For me intention is the key, both in deciding what might be valuable from what Walter Benjamin has to say, and in considering Art and the effects of technological reproduction.  While the definition of art may be elusive and the lines between art, business and culture are definitely becoming more blurred, it is helpful to maintain the distinction between artistic, business and political objectives or intentions. The products of Hollywood for example fall on a 3 dimensional spectrum with varying degrees of influence from art (expression), business (profit), and politics — the position of any given work of “art” varies accordingly. Blanket statements about the artistic value, authenticity or worthiness of films without considering these as separate issues is problematic. 

I think if we concentrate on Benjamin’s major observations we can give him some slack regarding his difficulty constructing sound logical arguments.  I also think we need to take into consideration the likely influence of what for him were relatively recent effects of the Great Depression and, perhaps forgive the slight resistance to change regarding new technologies and processes he may have exhibited, particularly concerning film making, and learn from his insights, despite the danger of giving to much value to the premises that were presented to support these ideas, which may have been faulty or misguided. It is not clear to me that the social significance of film necessarily results in a cost to cultural tradition, or that the social function of art ever was founded on ritual, or that without the criterion of authenticity applied to artistic production that the social function becomes politics, but his major insights are worth paying attention to.  Technological reproduction makes art available to the masses, with good and bad effects. The mass culture that results is in part facilitated by technology and controlled by capitalist concerns. Benjamin’s awareness of the potential for social control through control of the culture industry may be obvious today but somewhat prescient for his time.  Likewise, the observation that art or individuals possess an “aura” that may originate from structures of power is important, regardless if I buy into Benjamin’s point of view that technological reproduction may shatter this aura (it may enhance it).

Interestingly, Benjamin’s Passen-Werk project relied less on linguistics and more on imagery. For some insight into Benjamin’s Passen-Werk and thoughts on how truth could be derived from collage or fragmented images, see;  https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/3.2.html

and, The Arcades project: http://www.othervoices.org/gpeaker/Passagenwerk.php

For those interested, Susan Buck-Morss presents a possible assembly of the Passen-Werk project in her book: The Dialectics of Seeing (1991)

 Gordan Matta-Clark’s work was mentioned by Dan Graham as being a good example of how one can cut away and reveal the just-past, cutting into architectural structures

(Photo: Courtesy of the estate of Gordon Matta-Clark/David Zwirner [3] )

Splitting (1974)
Matta-Clark may be best known for his “building cuts,” in which he sliced structures like loaves of bread. This house in Englewood, New Jersey, was split in two, over four months of jacking and tilting. Manfred Hecht, who helped out, said, “It was always exciting working with Gordon—there was always a good chance of getting killed.” The house’s corners are now in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, but the rest is gone— it had been chosen because it was slated for demolition anyhow.

Day’s End (1975)
Matta-Clark cut five openings into the decrepit shed of Pier 52, calling it a “basilica” with a “rose window” (a bean-shaped hole facing the sunset) and illuminating a spot known for seedy nocturnal misbehavior. It was all done illegally—he later said, “I had no faith in any kind of permission … there has never, in New York City’s history, with maybe one or two minor exceptions, ever been any permission granted to an artist on a large scale”—and once the city got wind of the project, Matta-Clark ended up leaving the country to avoid arrest. (The pier today is a flat slab, with no superstructure.)

 [from: http://pintocurrent.blogspot.com/2007/03/gordan-matta-clark.html  and http://nymag.com/arts/arts/all/features/27799/index3.html ]

 In Marx for Beginners Eduardo del Rio (Rius) provides a concise introduction of Marxist principles, in an easy to consume fashion. Karl Marx’s reaction to the inequalities of capitalism are clearly presented to members of an astounded cartoon audience. With bias veiled in humor, Marxism is presented as the inevitable emancipation of man. Socialist Society is presented as the fifth and final mode in the “Successive Modes of Production to occur after the retreat of capitalism.  

Marxism is presented as a reaction to the economic inequalities of capitalism.  The solutions suggested by the Manifesto are economic and political, largely ignoring human needs that may be at least as important as achieving a fair surplus value.

In David Held’s Introduction to Critical, he describes how the Frankfurt School and Critical Thinking evolved, beginning his introduction referring to Critical Theory as “what one may loosely refer to as a ‘school’ of Western Marxism”.  While some of the criticisms of capitalism are shared with Marxism, such as the dehumanization that occurs in a capital intensive commodity society, Critical Theory is concerned with much more than economics, providing us with the means to evaluate objective and subjective effects of human thought and activity.

Horkheimer’s “Postscript” in Critical Theory expounds on the holistic concerns of human nature that Critical Thinking facilitates, considering both the scientific and non-scientific nature of humans, conccious of the problems that thinking in narrow bands of specialization and concern may bring.