AD603 Critical Theory

First, I’ll talk about China (America), then I’ll use red (non-reds) as a metaphor for cultural differences, next I’ll discuss film (politics) and the Third World (lower class), and lastly, I’ll wrap it all up with a discussion of women (men).  I hope to express to you how Westernization (the Master) and globalization (ingestion of my culture) have been the dominate, correct (incorrect) form of aesthetics since colonization (decolonization).  P.S. Read between the lines (parenthesis).

Okay, that was overly sarcastic and probably not necessary, but I found myself exhausted reading Minh-Ha’s essay.  I felt like I was reading a feminist Adorno in a twisted Benjamin-style: said and unsaid, red and white, life and death, men, women, good, pure, bad, blood, film, poverty… I’ll admit she got her point across with that opposition/reversal technique.  THE OTHER.  I had a hard time dealing with Minh-Ha’s accusations of the American and his/her sense of identity through the Other.  Near the end of her essay, she talked about America’s “goodwill” and the Vietnam War by stating, “the West … consists of granting itself the … rights to counteract its government and … to choose when to endorse … while the Third World must stand by its kinsmen” (Kocur and Leung 273).  I’m in an uncomfortable position.  There were things that I didn’t like about Minh-Ha’s essay (I thought it was aggressive), but some things that I appreciated (I tend to stick to the positives in my responses): I can appreciate Minh-Ha’s view point, and she has made me think about how I perceive art, especially art outside of Eurocentric aesthetics (segue to Mosquera!).  

Mosquera was easier to swallow and tended to win me over more than Minh-Ha.  Essentially, Mosquera claims that Eurocentrism (the dominate set of cultural values that perceives itself as correct) and the globalization of Eurocentrism has caused a universal dominance.  This amounts to a loss of culture, loss of identity, and a loss of nationality.  It creates a class system of First and Third Worlds, and promotes participation in a global capitalist market.  In the art world, Eurocentrism has been the dominate set of aesthetic values, creating a ‘high art versus traditional aesthetic’ discourse.  Mosquera argues for an expansion of ideals in Eurocentrism.  Rather than maintain Euro-aesthetics, one should understand how an artwork functions in its context, its contributions, and its values.  Art is not interpreted from one’s self and own circumstances as “reception is active and capable of expanding” (Kocur and Leunge 223).  He pushes for an understanding of cultural aesthetics instead of nostalgic representations (222).  I’m going to end my post with Mosquera: (in response to universality as a disguise for Western aesthetics) “this should not disable our reception of artwork beyond the culture which made it; even if that response is ‘incorrect’, it may still generate new meanings” (222). 

Lastly, the reading for the last few weeks have really opened the contemporary discourse:  modernism and postmodernism seem to be rather Eurocentrism and the Other, and/or Colonization and Decolonization.  I feel a bit overwhelmed.  After I graduate, I would like to teach in a university or work in a gallery: how can all of these issues be addressed??  

Here is a link to an article by CNN on contemporary Chinese artwork. The article provides a very brief overview of Chinese art history and its transitions to contemporary trends.     http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/inside.china/art.overview/

Here are two images, one from a Chinese photographer, Zheng Liu that I found on newchineseart.com, and an American photographer, Joel-Peter Witkin.  An artist statement wasn not available for Liu, but I responded to his images as a question of traditional aesthetics and contemporary practice.  He reconstructs some mythical histories by bringing props and models into the studio.  He reminds me of Witkin, who is a postmodern photographer that questions traditional European aesthetics by recreating some famous paintings and/or recreating traditional painting techniques in a cynical way.    

I think I’ll begin with the end of Charles Wright’s essay: “[the Whitney Biennial] exhibition demonstrates that the realities of cultural identity and community are too complex to be adequately articulated in the convenient terms that the museum chose to present them in (Kocur and Leung 200).”  That’s what I was thinking while reading his essay: one person, institution, or other cannot single-handedly explain and exhibit a comprehensive survey including all forms of cultural identity. There are too many complexities involved, and attempting such a large feat will place that entity under scrutiny (as proved by Wright’s essay).  However, I feel that these so-called attempts are important steps in social progression, even if they are sometimes perceived as failed attempts.  The upsurge of cultural identity in the ‘70s and ’80s has almost reversed its initial intention: that is, to widen the cultural scope, and in our case, in art history and art practice.  By “reversed”, I mean that it has gone full circle on itself.  There has been such a large interest in political correctness that it almost becomes part of the problem rather than the solution.  The more that is included, the more becomes excluded.  Where are the transgendered and hermaphrodites represented?  Where is class represented?  Or the handicapped?  How about the international populace?  All of these groups take part in the American system and contribute to the American identity just as much as the next. 

What it ultimately comes down to is this: who is the what factor in determining an exhibition.  That is Wright’s underlying point.  The referenced Whitney Biennial exhibition is the least of the problems.  The problem is the curator and the institution.  We’ve had these discussions in class before, often during our Frankfurt School and Marx weeks, where comments on the bourgeois, high culture, and elitists have all been referred to as the curators, the critics, and the art collectors; the ones who define art.  Wright made a few comments on the curators of the Whitney exhibition.  Three people curated the show, which, according to Wright, resulted in three shows instead of one.  All three people had a different approach to the exhibition: Sussman renounced her gendered position and apologized for the exhibition being any sort of propaganda; Phillips concentrated on political art as just another art movement; and Golden acted as the “battle cry for artists of color” (Kocur and Leung 195-196).

It is important for institutions to represent all groups, but we must not forget that we are looking at art.  Art’s identity should be the concern.  It is inherent that an artist’s cultural and social identity will show in their work and will be addressed by critics, but the craft and the concept is what we should view first.  For example, Delita Martin, a graduate student here in printmaking, openly addresses historical black identity in her images (an example is located at the end of this post).  And her craft is amazing.  Her prints are large scale and completed by hand. You have to view them in person to fully appreciate them.  I find her work to be a nice balance between art and the political arena.  Adrian Piper and Martin address similar issues in black identity, but, in contrast to Martin’s work, Piper chose an untraditional form of sculpture… or video… or I Don’t Know.  Piper, in reference to Jameson and Krause, blurs the lines of distinction.  This is where the artwork itself needs to be looked at rather than the political and social stance.  Just because an artist makes a political statement, does that mean they are creating art?

One last note: this week’s readings raised issues on social and cultural identities, and how we can include everyone while defining an overall American Art.  Therefore, American Art revolves around what it is to be black, female, gay, and anything other than a white male.  Well, what is it then to be a white male?  Is “white male” generic art?  Traditionalist art?  Conservative art?  Good art?           

Delita S. Martin “Adanya: Her Father’s Daughter” Linocut, woodcut; 32” X 24” 

I’ve begun to realize that post-modernism is a term that is still in definition. Post-modernism is usually used to describe the current state of the art world; however, it may not be defined for many years later. What is interesting are the differences in one’s approach to defining post-modernism. Jameson and Krause both attempt to explain this period, and what I would like to do is map the similarities and differences in their theories of post-modernism.

Krause uses the sculpture and a historical approach as her explanation of post-modernism.  She begins by defining sculpture as: historically bound, a monument or commemorative representation of a person or event, an object that speaks about the place.  Physically, the sculpture is generally figurative, vertical, and contains a base (Krause notes that it is an indicator, a sign, of distinction between the site and the representation).  According to this definition, the sculpture is directly related to space and time.  Krause discusses the loss of the figurative-ness in the sculpture, the loss of a pristine medium in sculpture; these are characteristics of post-modernism.  The revolt against modernist ideals has created an interpretation of used mediums, rather than strict rules for regulated use.  Some of her examples include photographs, the use of mirrors, and earthworks as sculpture.  She questions contemporary sculpture, but chalks it up to that ever defining term post-modernism.  She does make a few statements that indicate her argument for post-modernism: that it is what no longer can be modern; it is not organized around a practice or medium. Her mathematical explanation of sculpture (not-landscape + not-architecture = sculpture) is her explanation for all things post-modern. In closing, Krause indicates that history must be examined to determine the social conditions that caused the shift to post-modernism.

Jameson answers Krause’s question with consumerism, post-industrial society, and late capitalism.  He believes that these have contributed to the shift from modernism to post-modernism.  Jameson stated that post-modernism emerged as a reaction against high modernism.  The shift also occurs when something that is secondary in one period becomes primary in the next. He claimed that all that is post-modern has resulted in a lack of distinction between such categories as high art and commercial art and high culture and mass culture.  He even claimed that theoretical discourse is post-modern!  He also stated that post-modernism has become the loss of individualism. In comparison to modernism, styles, uniqueness, newness, will never happen because of the loss of individualism.  He comes up with two terms to describe post-modernism: pastiche- a “blank parody”, pastiche deals with space; and schizophrenia- loss of history and disconnected fragments of the present; schizophrenia deals with time.  In the case with Krause, sculpture is what physically deals with space and time, but I think the answers to her questions about post-modernism can be found with Jameson.  Examples like Mary Miss’s Perimeters/Pavilions/Decoys and Robert Smithson’s First Mirror Displacement embody pastiche and schizophrenia: mediums are intertwined, combined, and used in various ways.  And the fragmentation of time: space and time in these sculptures are not representations of the place nor are they directly related to a historical reference. 

Below are several images from two pop artists who comment on consumerism and are influenced by post-industrial society. I think they embody Jameson’s theories, and I wonder how Krause would comment on these sculptures…

I felt that Foucault has been the closest, so far in this course, to my work and medium.  I have often struggled with finding a place for photography, since I do not consider it a pure fine art medium or a pure design medium.  Besides this (which I’ll explain in more detail), I found Foucault’s explanations logical and easy to understand. He did not write as if I had to be some sort of elitist to figure out what he was really saying.  It is obvious that he cares about the communication of his ideas. 

Two statements from Foucault stood out to me. One, is his claim that the 19^th century has had an obsession with history; and two, is his idea that architecture should be concerned with population, not strictly space.  These two points indicate Foucault’s desire to push for change in one’s approach to design, art, and ultimately all fields.  He argued that history does not provide a solution and should not be the basis for spatial relationships, but he also declared that history cannot be disregarded all together.  History, according to Foucault, prevents us from falling into historicism (something that Benjamin promoted); for, historicism tends to build a mythical past.  So there must be a balance in one’s use of history for research, but not to discuss it nostalgically so as to refer to it as the solution.  That is the first step in changing our approach to art making. The second addresses the problems of space.  Architecture design, according to Foucault, does not solve the problems of society and space. The interviewer, Paul Rabinow, asked Foucault about liberation. I had thought that architecture was about providing more “liberating” spaces, to encourage more social places, and to lessen the constraints of one’s movements.  But Foucault claimed that every space is a type of constraint, although not necessarily a repressive one, and he concludes that liberation is a practice and architecture can only modify constraints or loosen them.  It should, therefore, be concerned with the population. Will there be enough space for everyone?  The second step in changing our approach to art making, is to look at the population. 

Both of those issues made a lot of sense to me, since I agree that history should not be relied on as a problem solver, and that people, the population, are the reasons for defining space.  The way that I see it is this: photography is in a constant battle with space and population.  Every photographer, in some way or another, is dealing with either one or both of those subjects.  First, we can think about the camera itself: the frame.  The frame becomes the definition of space.  I can make any number of spatial relationships that I want. It depends only on what/who I want to include in the image, the angle of where I’m shooting, and the vantage point that I choose.  The frame becomes the building, the room, or the garden in which I have control over the space.  Secondly, through the act of photographing (since it is a social tool), or through the image itself (the subject matter), every image, to me, has to deal with society and those living in it.

Foucault also made some nice points about the structure of cities. For example, his explanation of the placement of cemeteries in the 18^th century: During October Break, I went to Boston, where each square basically had its own cemetery (which was placed next to a church).  I remember Harvard square specifically: the church was placed facing Harvard, and the cemetery was placed next to the church.  This was obviously one of the “hearts of the city” at the time, where it was a sacred place, an immortal place, filled with faith, life, and knowledge.  Now, cemeteries are almost always found on the outside of the cities, and it was interesting to leave the subway station and walk through a cemetery from the mid-1700s. Below are two images of the Harvard Square cemetery.    

I found Lacan less difficult to read than Freud. Lacan’s writing style was more logical in explanation and sprinkled with a hint of sarcasm.  I really enjoyed reading the Homer chapters.  His explanations were straightforward, and I could appreciate Lacan more after reading Homer. He talked about Lacan’s history and his interest in art.  One point about Lacan that helped me to understand these psychoanalysis writings was how he did not consider psychoanalysis as a medicine, and instead, related it to the arts and philosophy.  When thinking about that, I found it easier to understand where people like Lacan and Freud were coming from.  

When explaining Lacan, Homer brought up Freud, since Lacan was influenced by him and shifted between agreeing and disagreeing with Freudism.  One difference between the two men was their interpretations of the ego.  For Freud, the ego is about morals and self-control, but for Lacan the ego is about maintaining the illusory image established during the mirror phase (Homer stated that the ego is a mis recognization of the self).  I can see a balance between Freud’s and Lacan’s theories, except that I’m hesitant on the mis recognization.  Homer (my favorite!) said it nicely, “In order for the subject to identify with an image in the mirror and then to misrecognize themselves, they must first have a sense of themselves as a self.”  This is a good critique of Lacan.  According to him, humans, at birth, have a clean slate, and they must go through the mirror phase in order to establish a sense of the self in reality.  The mirror phase reminded me of a documentary about feral children.  These children are abandoned at young ages, are, apparently, raised by wild animals, and eventually begin to behave the same as their animal providers behave.  Without proper recognition during the mirror phase, the child does not and cannot recognize the self.  That is a simple explanation of mis recognization, but if we were to apply that to a “normal” mirror phase, then is there a mis recognization in all of us? Can there not be a true recognition?    

During my photo seminar, idea of self performance was brought up during one of the grad’s critiques.  Andrea Dailey, a third year photography grad student, is working on her thesis project which involves some aspects of gender performance and self performance.  She is photographing before-and-after shots of women as their “private self” and as their “public self”. The concept is to reveal the influences of Western culture in beauty by noting the changes of the public and private self.  The actual act of transforming oneself from private to public is what I relate to with Lacan.  When we put make-up on, style our hair, and dress we are constantly doing so in front of a mirror as a self performance.  The discussion asked: How could the photographer capture this self performance?  It was suggested that she place a mirror next to the camera so that the model could look at herself instead of looking directly into the camera lens.  That way she would know what she looked like, which may change her facial expression.  I know that Lacan is not speaking of a physical mirror, but I thought it was interesting to think about performance with the ego.  Even though Lacan speaks of the mirror phase during early child development, I’m sure it is still evident in adult stages.  He stated that the mirror phase involves recognition by the self and others. Application of makeup, styling hair, and dressing are all acts of self performance and are ways to be recognized by others.  So my question is: Is the self performance a way for the ego to maintain the illusory image?

Private Self and Public Self; Andrea Dailey 2008

This week’s readings were interesting, and I liked the topic, but I just found them difficult. And I even thought that reading an Adorno essay might be less exhausting (ha! as I just now typed less exhausting it turned out less sexhausting… oh Freud…).  It was entertaining to think about some of Freud’s theories; or the possibility that my ideas may come from an unconscious repressed experience while my “poor creature” ego battles some invisible forces that my conscious does not understand. But, maybe next year or 40 years from now, after the Freud readings have incubated in my psyche, I’ll realize the significance of them. I suppose I could write this entry like a dictionary or text book and give my simplified definition of some buzz words. Or I could probably talk about repressed experiences popping up through a few brush strokes. I could even discuss Surrealism, but… I’m not going to, nor do I want to. What I’m about to write may be stretching the point of the readings and may not be clearly conveyed, but I had to give myself (and you) something that was not going to be a PSYCH 101 review.

This past week, I began the Freud readings at the same time that I began reading several articles on dark matter (which I’ll explain soon).  I reviewed my notes in the articles’ margins and found that a good half of them were related to Freud.  In an attempt to understand dark matter, I used Freud’s psychoanalysis as a way to rationalize this new art trend.  Dark matter is directly related to Adorno and the culture industry, but after realizing that Adorno was influenced by Freud, I decided to eliminate the middle-man, and analyze dark matter according only to Freud.  This, however, will take his theories out of the individual psyche and place it into a collective psyche.

So, what is dark matter? Dark matter is a term used by Gregory Sholette to define “slacker art”, or art produced against the main stream art world. Dark matter is the opposite of light matter. It includes crafts, zines, amateur photography, pirate radio, DIY, graffiti, and other alternative and experimental art forms.  Dark matter can be characterized as community and social networking rather than a hierarchy of elitism and bourgeois culture. According to Freud, the Id is non-moral and filled with primitive urges and instincts. Dark matter could represent the Id as its “slacker aesthetic” opposes craftsmanship and conventional aesthetics that are taught and appreciated by the main stream art world.  The Ego is essentially defined as conscious perceptions, therefore, museums, galleries, and educators could function as the Ego. The Super-Ego, defined by the Freud Reader as “introjected parental authority”, could be represented by the critics, the bourgeois, and the art collectors. So, the Id is the desire to produce and prove its aesthetic to the art world.  The Ego is placed in a situation where it must decide if it should include the Id as part of the art world by teaching its aesthetics or exhibiting it.  The Ego is motivated by fear: as an institution it may fail if it does not keep up with the latest trends.  The Super-Ego then criticizes and praises the Id for its backward aesthetics and criticizes and praises the Ego for its good intentions. These conflicts could result in the Super-Ego defining what is and is not art (capitalism? I guess we’re back to Marx now…)

The Baltimore Museum of Art held a show inspired by Gregory Sholette’s dark matter in November of 2004 titled Cram Sessions 02: Dark Matter.  The show displayed graffiti artists, zines, fantasy gaming props, knitted works, and others. Images were difficult to find of the exhibition, but this article  provides a brief explanation of the show.

When your day begins on a rough note, the rest seems to follow in that fashion. By the end of the day, when enough bad luck and frustration has rolled itself into a huge mass, anything with a hint of bitching seems like an appealing conversation. What a good day to read Debord! I started my day running a little late when my car key broke, leaving half of it in my hand and the other nestled comfortably in my car’s trunk lock. Well, at least I have my spare key… except for everything that’s in the trunk, STAYS in the trunk. At school, I settled myself next to the darkroom door to help my students with their prints. That’s when I realized why the lab tech always complains about the students: Is it just me, or are they not listening??  Plus, the ventilation system is too intense for the lab, and, after teaching for six hours, I swore at the Pao basement for being so cold and windowless. I then spent some time working in the darkroom, and, of course, didn’t make one decent print. That’s when I called it quits for the day, went home, and began to read Debord. By the time I was done, he had me convinced…

Before reading Society of the Spectacle, I journal-ed my definition of the word “spectacle”. I began with a word association, which then led to a memory. Two ideas came to mind: “voyeurism” and “fashion show”. But not in their literal sense. For voyeurism, I thought of the act of looking and the idea that people like to look. I then extended that to spectacle as: people like to see spectacles and like to participate in spectacles. As for the fashion show: that is the title of a memory of mine. I went through a phase where I would go to as many concerts as possible while spending lots of time getting to know the city of Detroit.  Thinking back to these shows, I remember seeing everyone dressing and behaving the same.  The fans were always pretending their best rock-n-roll attitudes: the men in their tightest girl jeans, dirty tees, and bed head hair; the girls wore their new pixie cut, cat-eye black frame glasses, and rockabilly dresses. This was the fashion show.  No one seemed to care so much about the entertainment, than they did about participating in a culture trend. I thought it was a good example of spectacle and capitalism: a mass group of people wearing the latest commodity trend.  It reminded me of an article that I recently read titled Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization from Adbusters

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html

After reading Debord, I thought that my definitions were slightly relative to his definitions.  Debord used spectacle as the arena in which capitalism is expressed. It creates its own world while fitting seamlessly into society. I enjoyed reading his book because he wrote in a direct manner. There were lots of things that I found in each thesis that were interesting statements, but #52 was one that I found to be extremely relevant to our current events.  Debord stated that “Once society discovers that it depends on the economy, the economy in fact depends on the society.” What happens when the economy begins to crash, the government starts to intervene, and banks, mortgage companies, and other faulty corporations need money from the same people that they stole from? And without help from the taxpayers, the government threatens us with a future filled with a failing economy.  I think Debord is absolutely right.  I think people are starting to see the economy now in its decline, and are beginning to realize that without a sustainable economy there will not be a sustainable society (and vice-versa).  

‘ >\”The Economy and You, Daily Show\”

So, what did Debord have me convinced about? Paraphrasing #40 and #51: economic growth has freed societies from the need to survive, but replaces basics needs with pseudo needs in order to sustain its growth. It’s a capitalist cycle: one needs to work to buy basic needs (food and shelter) to survive; however, if one works more, then they will satisfy the pseudo needs (better food, better shelter). Therefore, the society of the spectacle may look like this: work < needs < more work < pseudo needs < more work < more pseudo needs… etc.

 Walter Benjamin stated that due to reproducibility, the authenticity of an art work is lost.  As a photographer, reproducibility and authenticity have been important issues. They should also be important for those working in other mediums as well, since, in the digital age, everything is subject to reproduction.  However, I couldn’t figure out if Benjamin was stressing reproducibility as an individual act (I use a camera, a mechanical object, to create an artwork), or reproducibility of an artwork (I photograph art work for magazines, posters, etc.).

In either case, I believe there is an authenticity, an original that maintains the “aura” in technical reproduction because reproduction is a degenerative process.  But this is controlled by the artist/gallery/museum/other that owns the artwork.  These are the ones who define and protect its authenticity, but sometimes this is not accomplished very well.  For example, Dorthea Lange’s Migrant Mother, provides a good debate for the age of technical reproduction.  Lange, a photographer employed by the Farm Security Administration during the late 1930s, photographed the living conditions of farm families in the west.  Migrant Mother has since become an icon, appropriated in many different contexts.  And, since the federal government owns all of Lange’s negatives from the FSA project, her photographs are public domain.  Prints are easy to order and anyone can use the image to their liking: “There are no known restrictions for the use of Lange’s Migrant Mother”, Library of Congress [http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/128_migm.html].  Besides authenticity, another problem with reproducibility is context.  Photographs can easily be collaged with other images, and captions can be removed and replaced. Below is an example of Migrant Mother with one example of appropriation that was printed in a Black Panther publication during the 1970s. The drawing raised concerned about the original context of Lange’s photograph.

I found similarities between Benjamin’s essay and Adorno’s essay on Culture Industry.  Both theorists discuss film and the masses.  In comparison, Adorno was much more critical than Benjamin, but both implied that film has become the problem with art.  While Adorno stated that film is a part of conformity encouraged by the culture industry, Benjamin stated that film fulfills the demand for a distraction from reality.  The masses want a distraction; they want to participate in a type of hyper reality that only film can create.  I once learned this idea about the differences between painting (traditional art) and photography: Painting is a construction from reality, while photography is an extraction from reality.  I can now add Benjamin’s idea: Film is an intervention of reality.  Like photographs, film also extracts from reality, but, unlike photographs, film chooses specific parts of reality to edit and create a new reality: the hyper reality that the masses seek as a distraction.

Dan Graham’s essay didn’t shed much light on Benjamin’s essay, except to state a few of Benjamin’s ideals: history as memory, the capitalist myth of progress, and the just past. What I really understood in Graham’s essay was artist Gordon Matta-Clark. I hadn’t heard of him since this reading, but, after looking up some information about him and his artwork, he is someone that I’ll remember in the future. I really enjoyed his work. He sees homes, apartments, factories, and other buildings as commodities, and he literally cuts into the walls and floors of these buildings as a way to release the structure from a commodity function.

The Adorno essays are related through a discussion of art and nonart, and a significance that brings awareness to problems of art in society. Aesthetic Theory addresses the function of art in society, art in relation to nonart, and Kant and Freud; while Culture Industry uses those ideas in a more concrete example apparent in contemporary society. The significance of both articles, is that Adorno does not seek to provide a solution to: art, the idea of art, the comprehension of art, or even a way to view art. Instead, he raises questions about the value of art as a way to encourage us to consider issues of art in society.

In Aesthetic Theory, Adorno discussed art’s creation and its role in society; both being dependent on each other. Concerning role: 1. Communication. Art can communicate in ways that “nature and man cannot”. 2. Lack of communication. Art tends to pull itself away from society at some point, or, in other words, opposes that which is happening in society. 3. Median. Art is a balance between opposing forces, or tensions. Thinking about those points, let’s move on to creation: 1. Style. Through its lack of communication, art styles and methods are based on changes in societal developments. 2. Response. Art becomes a response to unresolved issues, or tensions, in society. 3. Progression. The balancing act between societal tensions keeps the art process in motion.

When Adorno discussed Kant and Freud, he emphasized their involvement in the idea of nonart. He brings up objectivity and subjectivity. Kant’s assessment of art revolves around satisfaction and disinterest. Adorno stated that Kant’s method to objectivity is through subjectivity, and that Kant “rescued art from… insensitivity”. Freud, on the other hand, critics art as empirical, through dreams, instincts, and psychic activities. I believe that Adorno desires a level of subjectivity and objectivity in art, however, through his critic of Kant and Freud, I feel that he believes they may add to nonart by stressing too much on subjectivity.   

Adorno used the idea of nonart in Aesthetic Theory as a way to explain art. In Culture Industry, nonart is stressed as being the result and product of the culture industry. What I liked most about this essay was how it is related to our time, and I wonder how Adorno would feel with today’s culture industry. He defined the culture industry in several ways. One way is through industry: simply put, this involves standardization and distribution. Agencies are employed to create neat packages for all needs: logos, promotion, commercials, theme songs, etc. Another definition is through the question of function and quality. Since the culture industry is dominate in society and of its importance (stressed by the industry) in society, culture industry prevents itself from analysis and any question of its truth. Adorno made a statement that I felt could relate in many different fields, “…the function of something is no guarantee to its particular quality.” He reinforces this with film examples: basic plots and basic characters have an “interchangeable sameness”. He lastly discussed conformity. Adorno believes that the culture industry is a fraud, a restriction of consciousness, promoter of conformity, and a destroyer of art.

While reading Culture Industry, I thought of two things: pop music and muzak. I think most people would agree that pop music is probably the most despised product from the culture industry. Mostly, because we hear it everywhere! It is heard in work environments, shopping centers, grocery stores, radio, television, public events, etc. Considering the concept of muzak, originally created to increase worker production in factories, pop music is the new muzak. Employing major chord progressions (upbeat and happy sounds) and progressive beats (easy to shop and walk to), pop muzak provides a method to organize and increase our consumption and production.

Below is an illustration that comments on pop music. The authors, under the pseudonyms Yapfoo and Elephant, do not provide information about themselves. From the website, I concluded that they are most likely studying music as undergraduates, and this comic website is their mode of distraction and stress relief. Though not wholly sophisticated, I appreciated the childish look of the drawing in contrast to the direct manner in which the idea was conveyed.     

“Pachelbel 6”

http://muzak.smackjeeves.com/comics/408102/pachelbel-6/

Site copyrighted by Yapfoo and Elephant.

My thought of critical theory had, I’ll admit, attached to it an undeniable fear of the texts. Yet, I found the readings easier to manage than what I originally expected. They reiterated some previous ideas and knowledge that I had of the subjects, but, more importantly, explained and connected these ideas in a logical manner. I see the readings divided into two: one provides an explanation and a short history for the basis of critical theory; while the other two aim at a definition of critical theory, one employing a broader explanation than the other.

I enjoyed Rius’s Marxist for Beginners mainly for the conversation-like explanation Rius was able to provide. Texts with topics that may appear heavy should be, to some degree, accessible and comprehendible to a wide variety of people. (As we have found already that elitism is not the answer!) When I finished reading Marxist for Beginners, I felt that I had a good understanding of Marx, with historical influences and concerns, as well as gaining a better understanding of capitalism and the struggles between economy and the working class.  I realized that the connections with these issues are relatively new with a direct connection to capitalism: We are living in a capitalist system, and I am a participant. This makes me wonder: What will come after capitalism? Will I see the change?

The other two readings had provided an explanation of critical theory. David Held’s Introduction to Critical Theory focused on the Frankfurt school theorists by explaining their influences and stressing the importance of the historical events that they lived through.  Held also implied the fluidity of critical theory: the Theorists did not strictly maintain their predecessors’ words as fact, but also criticized them in order to fully contextualize their thoughts. In comparison, Max Horkheimer’s Critical Theory, took a broader approach to a definition. He did site German Idealism and Marxism as factors, but also noted several intentions and purposes of critical theory. Using these two readings, I’d like to summarize my (current) definition of critical theory:

Critical theory is concerned with an alternative path to social development (Held), and attempts to solve the problems of men by addressing the needs (Horkheimer).

Critical theory is aimed to support an increase in our involvement in current societal systems, promote our potentials, and to encourage us to seek new possibilities other than gaining profit and power.

Critical theory is a constant evolution of ideals that must examine and analyze history, as well as contemporary society, politics and economy.

I remembered, while reading Marxist for Beginners, some ideas that I had read before.  These ideas, at the time, were far to me, as I did not recognize their context, purpose, or significance. I had read them several times over the past years just to see if I could make sense of them: is this real, a joke, or another marketing ploy? They come from a band called Refused, who formed in the mid-90s. One of their albums, The Shape of Punk to Come, comes with a small manifesto influenced by Marx and the Situationist International (founding member Guy Debord, who we’ll be reading soon!).

Here is a link to one of Refused manifestos. The second paragraph I find most relative to the Rius text: http://www.burningheart.com/refused/refmanifest5.htm. In addition, there are several other writings posted on the same webpage (take the back to manifestos link).