17 thoughts on “Week 4 – Media, Culture and Ideology (T2)”
Vienna
I recall very vividly the time I watched Avatar in Imax. There was a group of elderly men seated next to me and when the film was creating Pandora, I saw the man next to me raise his hand as if he could touch the flowers he saw in 3d ‘directly’ in front of him. Personally I feel he definitely knew that they weren’t actually there but in that moment of ‘movie magic’ he rather forget reality and embrace what was unreal simply because it was better than reality.
‘When reality and fiction become blurred we lose the capacity to make logical decisions.’ Prof Han said this during lecture, about how we become dumb. This made an impact because of how he explained entertainment as the prolongation of work. You pay to escape the harsh reality by having to go back to it. I know this, yet after I write this blog post I’ll probably watch a movie. This is what is scary. Freud: we may not particularly act in the way that is best for us. The strength of the ideological control of the ‘new’ forms of entertainment knows no bounds. Carey’s ritual aspect of communication comes into play. I wanted to be ‘dumb’ and touch those beautiful flowers the same as everyone in the cinema because they were better than the flowers in reality (the way the masses had symbolically interpreted those flowers was planned by the producers when they used equipment to create the ‘fake’ beauty of those flowers.)
The lack of an opt out of this system (well, sleep I guess) brings to mind Freire’s, Pedagogy of the Oppressed where only the oppressed can free themselves but their structure of thinking has been conditioned by the oppressive system that they cannot consider themselves sufficiently clear to objectivize themselves to discover themselves outside the oppressors. What would my world be like without movies? (books and imagination perhaps) But now that we have movies we will never go back to a time when we didn’t and I am left to imagine what a time without movies was like without ever actually knowing.
Iman
Adorno & Horkheimer
What stood out for me in Adorno and Horkheimer’s reading the most was the notion of the “dulling of criticality.” The entertainment available to the masses do not serve to intellectually grow them but instead, are used to “dumb” people down, hence limiting their ability to critically think. The entertainment industry hence can grow into a sinister tool employed by authorities to control the masses without the masses realising it themselves. They think they are escaping their mundane, mechanical routine that revolves around work but they are merely falling into the traps of those at the top by succumbing to spending time and money on entertainment. This is especially scary today in the modern world where people are so hypnotized by the entertainment industry and indulge in TV marathons, mindless gossip about celebrities etc.
Benjamin
Benjamin expresses a similar concern to Adorno and Horkheimer. He states that anything that is a reproduction of the original is not real and this fakeness can trick us. This then affects sense perception which in a way is similar to the”dulling of criticality”. For example, the Hermes Birkin gives consumers a false sense that they are purchasing something exclusive and special. This is done by the exorbitant price tag attached to the bag as well as the waiting list that could make one wait for years to receive the bag. How special could this bag be if in reality, there is more than one of it available? It simply exists under the guise of exclusivity via marketing tactics employed.
Dionne See
I’m not sure if because it was an easier read, but I found Carey’s article pretty interesting. Like all common folks out there, I asked myself what do I first think of when I think of communication? I would say delivering of messages, talking, transmitting what you want to say to another person.
But Carey says that this view is too simplistic (like we are not thinking simple enough). His “ritual” explaining of communication makes a lot sense. So was how communication was actually compared to transportation (even before communication was seen more superior). The keyword is “distribution”. Our messages need to be distributed, not to one person, but it’s mass communication in a sense.
Carey gave the example of the newspapers. I have always thought to be critical, you question what is presented to you because the information in the newspapers comprise of advertisements, ideologies, messages carried by people in power. Yes, Carey says this is so. But, the important thing is how these newspapers, even if they serve very little functions, do not educate us as much (as we doubt them), the fact is, the messages are “habitually consumed” and they reach the masses, a community. The messages are hence distributed, and redistributed throughout the community, and shaping the culture of the society, shaping the historical changes. For this messages to work as a drama, they have to be situated in an environment that is suitable for their drama effects to take place with models and processes – “shared information circulating in an organic system”. Furthermore, we, everyone of us, are not just “readers” or “consumers” in a sense. We take part in all these drama as well!
Another interesting takeaway was how Carey mentioned how we don’t question communication because we see them as simply daily activities like talking, emailing, etc. This reminded me of the story of the button in White’s article. We often neglect these things that we see as a natural phenomenon, but in fact the underlying meaning and the development of these is not as simple as we think.
Sakino Tan
While reading both Benjamin, Horkheimer and Adorno, I wondered why they kept mentioning art as an important source of entertainment or culture. It was when I realised that art was of high value especially in the past. I do not relate to this as i am being brought up in a more modernised and mass cultural world. In addition, Singapore does not promote art as much. It is more in the Western countries that Art is more highly valued and recognised as high culture. I feel that high Art may be less relevant in today’s context since we are currently in a more digitised world where even art takes a new form.
Through Adorno and Horkheimer, I feel that technology has definitely allowed those in power to have more control over our lives. Despite having more choices in today’s world, the large conglomerates dominates the ideas that are transmitted to us. Although we do produce self reflexivity to some extent while consuming cultural products, there are still times when we ‘fall’ for the messages that are put across by the mediums. For example, an actor in a tv programme starts to drink coke during the show, it might indirectly spur a craving for coke among the audiences. They might think, yeah a can of coke would be good right now. Therefore, there may be some domination by those in power of our lives.
Korean dramas may be very popular as it is an illusion, the plot is created whereby some of us can relate to it. When we watch the sad scenes, it makes the audience either relate to the scene if they have been through or are going through that scene, if not it consoles the audience that their life isnt so bad afterall. ultimately, the audience feels happy when the drama ends with a happy ending because that is what everyone wants in their lives.
Benjamin talks about authenticity. However, I feel that authenticity is such a subjective term since something may be authentic to a person but less authentic to another based on the criteria that the item is judged upon. Authenticity also changes with time. Something that used to be authentic in the past may not be considered to be authentic now since majority of the things we consume and use are mass produced.
The transmission view that Carey mentions is a rather straightforward concept since many mediums pass messages across. However, the ritual view is more interesting. The symbols that are presented are constructed and allow for different interpretations. But that is what makes us human, the ability to think. This is culture. Without the different interpretations then those in power may be able to have a more concrete definition of ‘total domination’.
Maxly Inthaxai
As the reading response contents that considering of culture is the basically of many sections in the communication.
Adorno and Horkheimer presented the culture industry enlightenment that can answer a lot of wonders in the term of mass deception. In fact, everything has own valuable in which representatives that should be on.
In the culture industry this imitation finally becomes absolute that it is strongly unbelievable without anything cannot be controlling by themselves and other way culture industry most rigid style proves to be the goal of liberalism that he believed. However, in this case it seem to be definitely in the dialectic of enlightenment and some of them extremely consisting together with dialectic and mass deception by the medium of culture.
It also familiar to Benjamin as contain of how mass be able to take a lot of features and explore the contents of information as a part of media control. The overview of illuminations can be explain more clarify to the theme of aura that the reproduce can not be take almost the audiences to play the attention that meant there are more attractive with the original product and of course the intensive can penetrated all over the human interest , hence the definition of the unique phenomenon is probably more flexible of the content in the illuminations and effected to the deception as well.
Appreciatively, a culture approach to communication as Carey recognized many words, particularly in the transmission of the idea that he explained to us at the deepest roots of our thinking that communication is a process whereby message are transmitted and distributed in space for the control of distance and people ( interesting exposition of the view ), so that communication basically can be approach by being come true and developed as well as the historical by moving away and found the creatively community in present.
Clarinda Ong
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer focus on some main themes like “What is culture industry?” and how it is linked to ‘power’ and ‘domination’. Also, an interesting term ‘total domination’ caught my attention. I’ve learnt that ‘culture industry’ has been coined by these two authors, and they argued that popular culture can be in comparison with a factory producing standardized cultural goods which is then used to control the masses. We actually are all trapped in this bubble where we just have to receive information being bombarded everywhere we go. It can be said that all the information fed to us are all synchronized with whichever institutions/ means involved. This relates to the power relations as the ones with the ‘means of production’ in Marx’s terms to produce information for the society are the ones in control of the others who do not have any. The totality of the culture industry is an issue. People are being controlled in a most extensive manner under the power and totality of capital. Constantly being fed with unfulfilled promise, people get the illusion that their promise will be fulfilled but not in reality, that explains mass deception. Both of them have a most extreme view where the audience do not have the chance to use their own imagination, and thinking but just acting as recipients of information. Audience has been reduced to be “dumb”, “victims” of the culture industry.
Benjamin writes about the repercussions of modernity in the work of art, particularly focusing on the loss of ‘aura’ via the mechanical reproduction of art. For Benjamin, aura meant the originality and authenticity of the piece of art, and it must exist in the same time & space frames of production. In this modern age, many technologies enable us to do modifications and reproduction of work of art, and this would mean that these pieces of art will not have aura anymore. Another important point is on the point of ‘shock effect’: technologies also create new forms of alienation – the shock is part of the alienation. Audience is alienated from their own thinking; there is just no time to process what is in front of them when they are watching a film. In the post-modern world, there are newer technologies such as 3Dimensional and 4Dimensional movie experiences catered to the masses and this would have brought about a new type of shock to the audience as well. This shock constitutes appealing to emotions and feelings.
James Carey came out with two views: “transmission view of culture/ communication” & “ritual view of communication”. Transmission of communication denotes a unidirectional approach where the main goal is to pass down the message to the intended audiences. Main point of ritual view of communication is to understand the symbolic meaning – communication having links to the shared societal beliefs and views. There is a connotation of ‘community’, ‘commonness’ and this is crucial as this means that people do not just receive media information as what it is simplistically. They will attach their own meanings and interpretation – which is a differing view from what Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer believe. However, James Carey mentioned that in reality, it is only right to be open to these various views of communication to further deepen our knowledge on human relations.
Cheryl Chern
Adorno and Horkheimer talk about the culture industry as having domination over society through the achievement of standardization and mass production. Under such monopoly and domination, all mass culture is exactly the same. They mention that the culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises and is repressive. The culture industry promises the escape from the monotony and drudgery of work, but ultimately, it brings us back to being resigned to our fate.
Similar to Adorno and Horkheimer, Benjamin also talks about how the historical testimony and the authenticity of a product or work of art is questionable in light of its reproducibility. The authenticity of a work of art ceases to exist especially in the age of mechanical reproduction where art can easily be reproduced. Hence, the work of art has lost its presence in time and space, its uniqueness or its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. With the reproducibility of art, the way that society sees art has also changed.
Carey talks about the two alternative conceptions of communication in his article. Firstly there is the transmission view of communication that is derived from the desire to increase the speed and effect of messages as they travel in space. Communication is thus viewed as a process and a technology that would spread, transmit and disseminate knowledge, ideas and information farther and faster. The other view is the ritual view of communication that is directed toward the maintenance of society in time. To him, communication, through language and symbolic forms, shapes the human existence.
Lynette Loh
In response to Benjamin’s article, he argues that the aura of the actor is tied to his physical presence and that there can be no replacement of physical presence. This brings to mind 3D “movie-concerts” where actual concerts are filmed and then made available to the masses who were unable to catch the actual concerts. Hence these movies are shown in cinemas all around the world. This begs the question, when you actually see the “actor” in 3D, and the concert actually happened, does that cause the actor to lose his aura?
I think Benjamin would be rolling in his grave if he knew what was happening to the film industry today because these 3D concert things are kinda the epitome of manipulating consumer’s emotions. It makes us THINK we’re experiencing the real concert when actually, it’s just a movie. I’ve actually watched one of these 3D concert things (peer pressure does terrible things) and there was legit fangirling going on.
This also brings to mind the question on how aura is created. If these concerts are able to make consumers think it’s the real thing, then could it be argued that the aura of the actors, or in this case the musicians, have transcended time and space? ie physical presence is not needed.
Ernie Effendi
Horkheimer and Adorno argues the culture industry as something marked by cultural homogeneity and predictability. Unlike Walter Benjamin, who places the power of culture products in the consumption of it, Horkheimer and Adorno places too much stress on production and distribution. I feel it is a very elitist view to assume that audiences are passive and will not practice critical thought when consuming cultural products. The use of ‘pseudo-individuality’ itself portrays the belief that cultural products hampers critical thought and there is no room for ‘authentic’ and ‘autonomous’ culture.
Walter Benjamin, however, puts the power of cultural products in the act of consumption. He believes meaning is produced in the act of consumption but mass media has led to consumerism and commodification. Technical reproduction challenges the ‘aura’ of cultural products and opens it for plurality of interpretation.
Hence, it is important to recognise the audience of the cultural products, and not just focus on the creators. The society which the product is produced in is important. Just as Carey’s article states, “communication is a symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed’. Cultural products, which can be considered as communication between the creator and audience, reflect the reality of the society that it is being produced in.
An example would be Malay dramas that are being shown on the tv. My parents as receivers of the cultural product, recognizes that the increase in marriage themes like polygamy in these dramas are also a reflection of how there is an increase in polygamous marriages and affairs in the society today. Additionally, critical thought is evident in the differing responses to the drama series with my dad being more infuriated about the issues while my mum seems more sympathetic. This reiterates that audiences of cultural products are not necessarily passive and they do practice critical thought.
Kerri Heng Yi Ping
I’ll use the example of Taiwanese/Korean Idol Dramas (something close to my heart) as an example that relates to this week’s readings. Some aspects of Idol Dramas, I realised, can really reflect parts of the text word-for-word. I was addicted to Idol Dramas at 13 and really believed in them, till reality came crashing down years later. The readings made me think about how constructed and ‘invented’ these Idol Dramas were, and how they influenced by perception of romance and love.
WALTER BENJAMIN
– He talks about how mass media is made to be easily reproduced today, and thus it loses its authentic ‘aura’ of exclusivity. He really has great foresight for someone writing from his time. This is true for Taiwan/Korean/Japanese Idol Dramas; they are made to be reproduced. Dramas are sometimes adapted from anime/comic books (Walter would call it the bastardisation of an original piece of work, the transformation of an original into something beyond recognition) and made into TV series spanning many Versions and Seasons. Each set of comics can span spin-offs in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, each country would buy franchisee rights to produce the show. And essentially, it’s reproduced and copied because the storylines are all the same. Just different actors in a different setting, with perhaps a minor plot changes. Think Boys over Flowers and Hana Yori Dango.
– Definitely, art is no longer fixed in one place today, it moves (unlike the fixed art pieces in religious settings). It allows people all over the world to have easy access to it, at their own time and pace. For Idol Dramas, you can get them almost anywhere from DVD boxsets to pirated copies online – it’s really has a mass audience and hardly any exclusivity.
– He talks about how the intermediary of the camera lens makes art (film, in his example) lose its aura and authenticity. He talks about how the film is constructed not by the performer, but by the camera lens, the special effects and the film editor. Indeed, Idol Dramas are constructed with the same things and with writers and producers dreaming up the entire storyline. None of it is created by the performer – the performer/actor is just a prop in the whole show. He is unable to influence a performance the same way a theatre performer can. For instance, an Idol Drama would look flawless (and thus less authentic) as it’d be edited to perfection. But a stage play would have visible flaws, rendering it more authentic.
– Lastly, Walter says that individual reactions to mass media are predetermined by mass audience response. This is especially true in the case of reading reviews of a particular show/drama. One’s individual reaction to a show would be directly influenced by what the mass audience says – if the mass online reviews of an idol drama are negative, I may not watch it at all, or I may just be skeptical about it. (the same applies to all films and TV programmes today.)
HORKHEIMER AND ADORNO
– One point really stood out word-for-word: “Love is downgraded to romance”. How enlightening this is! In Idol Dramas, only romance seems to be portrayed. Copious Taiwan/Korean dramas have taught me about how love is sweetened by fluffy marshmallows, hot chocolate and endless kissing. Isn’t this purely romance? I think the Idol Dramas really tell me nothing about what true love is. They’re just beautifully crafted pictures of romance.
– And yes, there is repressed sexual energy exhibited in Idol Dramas. (As they’re not full-fledged porn shows, they try to keep it as kid-friendly as possible). “Things can never go that far” in mass media as it’s after all, for the mass audience. So Idol Dramas amp up the heat with lots of good looking stars in figure-flattering clothes doing lots of kissing. And there’s the mandatory shower scene of a topless guy/hunk in almost every show. Indeed, it’s “pornographic and prudish” at the same time.
– “Life in the late Capitalist era is a constant initiation rite. Everyone must show that he wholly identifies himself with the power which is belabouring him”. This power – mass culture/media – is the one thing everyone wants to embody. True enough, I was caught up in the K-Drama craze in Secondary school and it was always ‘cool’ to be one of those who knew the latest about the dramas. I fully identified with the ‘power’ of Idol Dramas and was perfectly happy to be ‘initiated’ into that K-drama culture. We’d scourge for the best illegal websites to watch the latest uploads, till our eyes grew watery, red and tired. Talk about the “defenselessness” of subjecting ourselves to the power of Idol Dramas.
JAMES W. CAREY
– He talks about how art is a presentation of reality that “gives life and overall form, order and tone”. Indeed, Idol Dramas, at the literal level, are all about order and tone. They have similar love/romance story-lines and cookie-cutter Idols who always look perfect. At the figurative level, perhaps Idol Dramas project a kind of structure about how to make money out of showbiz. It’s a tried-and-tested, economically successful model that can be marketed all over the world. Idol Dramas are “invented cultural forms” for the larger goal of profit. The formula – borrowed story-lines, good looking stars, some fluffy romance and kissing – seems to sell very well.
– Reality is also constructed via shared meaning and this can be fleshed out in idol Dramas. Like how communication “fosters social bonds” and binds us together, Idol Dramas do the same too. The aspects of “communal” and “community” are developed as the love-sick teens in a school watch the same idol drama together. We huddle together in front of laptops, share food and pull all-nighters for an idol drama. Yup it bonds.
– “Significant symbolic forms are created, apprehended and used”. For instance, after watching Idol Dramas, we may have had a certain perception of romance. If a guy pulls of his jacket for you on a cold, snowy day, it means that he loves you. If he says your name when he’s drunk, it means that he loves/likes you. All these ‘signs’ and ‘symbols’ I’ve picked up from idol dramas reinforced a certain image of romance in my mind. These signs become significant when they’re lapped up and used by teenagers as romance guides. Also, romance signs can be used for marketing too. A unique instance was this Korean drama, where the lead actress sewed a life-sized plush figurine and attached her husband’s photo to it. And she hugged it around her home. Mini Toons in Singapore then released sets of the plush figures, in three different sizes – large, medium and small (to hang on your bag as a keychain). They were sold in two colours – white and pink. Idol Dramas thus can create new symbols and these symbols can be used for marketing or used to satisfy the desires of people who believed the symbols.
Thank you for reading this 🙂
Audrey
In “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, Hockheimer and Adorno write a powerful critique about mass media, also dubbed the “central text of the Frankfurt school”. Let’s bear in mind that the pair, who were members of the Marxist-inspired Frankfurt school, wrote this during the 1940s, after escaping from Germany to the USA during WWII.
Adorno and Hockheimer first address the “absolute power of capitalism”, drawing a clear distinction between producers and consumers. They assert that content produced on film and radio “no longer pretend to be art”, unreservedly slamming the “culture industry” as “cheating its consumers”.
Fundamentally, they view the media as creating a top-down relationship between its creators and consumers, and a form of control of those in authority.
“The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers” and “deceived masses”.
They also find fault with standardisation and mass production, claiming that it destroys individuality. A parallel could be drawn to the Marxist thought of Man the Maker and how the modern production system alienates us from what man produces.
The media, an accomplice (or subordinate) of the capitalist system, further alienates man from himself, and instead makes him part of a collective that have been fed messages that congeal into ideologies originated from those in power.
Adorno and Hockheimer’s narrative is somewhat applicable to media in society today, though not entirely true.
The advent of social media has significantly blurred the lines of producers and consumers. I produce and consume media almost at the same time. For example, I watch the latest video of my favourite artiste posted on Facebook, and I immediately share it on my wall. I can even change or enhance the meaning of the video through my caption. Feedback is also instantaneous. Two seconds later, a friend has Liked and commented. Following the success of my post, I post more, hoping to generate even more viewership. Thus, as a consumer, I’m not fed with messages.
In fact, I consume so I can produce.
Adorno and Hockheimer theory that art is only valuable if it is exclusive and something unattainable for the masses, holds true till today. This thought is still replicated in society in the form of high art. Interestingly, we see this exclusivity trying to be adopted in pop culture too – which is the “indie” genre.
The rules of this exclusive circle, including different art forms like film, music, photography, art, is: the smaller the circle, the more authentic the art is. The less people know about a particular band, the more ‘underground’ it is, the more one gets to keep an exclusive status and exhibit his individualism. It’s funny how our tastes in consumerism almost determine the kind of people we are.
Maria Yutong Zhao
James Carey
The essay is well organized. James Carey put forward several question towards the literature of John Dewey and then he shared his thoughts on the specific definition of communication and what role does culture play in the process of transmission.
He points out that the transmission view of communication is the commonest in our culture, in other words, imparting, sending, transmitting, and giving information to others. From his point of view, he states that communication is a process whereby messages are transmitted and distributed in space for the control of distance and people.
The thing I found most interesting is his argument that the roots of the transmission view of communication, in his culture at least, lie in essentially religious attitudes. I don’t quite agree with his statement that religious, beyond political and mercantilistic, is the real motive behind vast movement. Admittedly, it did lead a preacher of the era in western countries and other countries to some extent.
But in China and some other countries, religion doesn’t play a part in the development of society, not to mention that transportation could be a form of communication with profoundly religious explications.
Horkheimer
According to Horkheimer, it is not true that cultural chaos are caused by the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of last remnants of pre-capitalism, technological and social differentiation or specialization.
It means that popular culture is just like a “factory producing standardized cultural goods” — films, radio programs, magazines, etc. — that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity. The inherent danger of the culture industry is the cultivation of false psychological needs that can only be met and satisfied by the products of capitalism; thus Adorno and Horkheimer especially perceived mass-produced culture as dangerous to the more technically and intellectually difficult high arts.
From his point of view, culture industry involves movies, radio and magazine is leading the direction of society to a wrong way where the system they create focus on its economic value instead of art. To make it worse, it threatens individual consciousness and it makes the real masterpieces pale in comparison to those cater to publics.
In contrast, true psychological needs are freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness, which refer to an earlier demarcation of human needs.
In my opinion, the profits shouldn’t mix with public interest.
Diyana Mohd
In Adorno and Horkheimer’s article, the culture industry, through various standardized “art” forms, has a very pervasive way of contriving the experience of our social lives, in such a way that we are entrapped from being reflexive, thinking beings. The authors too argue that in the commodification of culture, “pseudo individuality is rife” and that “the peculiarity of the self is a monopoly commodity determined by society” (pp. 154). Those cool boots one has to buy to carve one’s identity as a unique individual is rubbish, because “no object has an inherent value; it is valuable only to the extent that it can be exchanged.” (pp. 158) Like any other industrial product, said boots are mass produced only to incite desires of individuality to thousands who blindly seek them. Also, “Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work. It is sought after as an escape from the mechanized work process, and to recruit strength in order to be able to cope with it again.” (pp. 137) Should that be true, it is alienation to the point that I didn’t realize the streamed TV shows I so excited to watch at the end of the day was indoctrinated in my fate of perpetual subordination.
In Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, the author explains how art “has left the realm of the “beautiful semblance” which, so far, had been taken to be the only sphere where art could thrive.” (pp. 230) Like Adorno and Horkheimer, he agrees that somehow art is devalued and cheapened to a mass-cultural commodity. He uses the notion of “aura”, that is, the uniqueness of expression of the cult (pp. 223), which art in the age of mechanical reproduction dearly lacks. He continues to establish how art has aura, and that “the accent is on the cult value” vis-a-vis “the exhibition value of the work.” (pp. 224) He argues that art matters due to “their existence, not their being on view” (pp. 224-225), and claims “today the cult value would seem to demand that the work of art remain hidden.” (pp. 225) My assumption of this is that art is considered art only when it has exclusive and/or limited visibility. Henceforth, art has an esoteric quality in the sense that it is restricted only to those who can comprehend and appreciate it fully. It seems if art is not on full publicity and viewing pleasure of the masses, then art can remain valued. This is interesting and upon understanding this, I try to apply to today’s contemporary context. I wonder if the digital images of original brilliant art works I found on tumblr matter to be art or not. And following Benjamin’s argument on what makes art art, I think he will find Instagram photographs to be revolting.
James Carey’s A Cultural Approach to Communication introduces two views of communication: transmission and ritual. I feel his article has a more symbolic interactionist slant as compared to first two which are more critical. Particularly due to his assertion of the symbolic production of reality, supported by McLuhan’s metaphor ‘the fish is unaware of the water’ (pp. 9), that one has to be aware of the taken-for-granted practices and symbolic elements of everyday life to better understand communication. “Similarly, communication, through language and other symbolic forms, comprises the ambience of human existence (pp. 9) and “We create, express, and convey out knowledge of and attitudes toward reality through the construction of a variety of symbol systems” (pp. 13) as evidence. He includes that symbolic forms possess displacement and productivity (pp. 11) and has a dual capacity i.e., “symbols of” and “symbols for” (pp. 12). Somehow I feel that Carey is against the transmission model (aka ‘economic order’) and is for the ritual model (aka ‘ritual order’), asserting that it is a “not only [a]… “wonderful” process but to give us a way in which to rebuild a model of and for communication of some restorative value in reshaping our common culture.” (pp. 16) I would like to understand more on this preference as it was only explicitly explained in the last page.
Sasha Kaur Dhillon
( PICTURE OF JUSTIN BIEBER – https://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1410&bih=738&q=justin+biber&oq=justin+biber&gs_l=img.3..0i10l2j0j0i10l2j0j0i10l3j0.1878.3811.0.3883.13.13.0.0.0.0.99.540.13.13.0.ernk_timecombined…0…1.1.32.img..0.13.539.zWFXIJXc2rg#hl=en&q=justin+bieber&spell=1&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=w2MpQ-axmw6WnM%253A%3BQUgVE2Di4tzXZM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fjustinbiebero.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252Fjustin-bieber-2013-new-photo.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fjustinbiebero.com%252Fjustin-bieber-2013-new-photo%3B1505%3B1500 ) – WHY CANT IT BE PASTED IN THIS COMMENT BOX THINGY ? 🙁
Anyway,
Yes, that IS Justin Bieber. I apologize in advance if you are a Belieber ( god bless you) but if like me, you are mad pissed that at the age of nineteen where you find yourself broke every other day, there’s a teen just like you who has an estimated worth of US $130 million for his “talent” in the music industry. Not that I do not believe that Justin doesn’t earn every bit of his money – it’s just that I never quite believed he was talented you know? Yeah sure he sings wayyyyy better than I could ever bring myself to but seriously music videos like “ Baby” and “ Eenie Meenie Minnie Mo” ? THAT’s what gets you to millionaire superstardom?
Thankfully, Walter Benjamin has rested my insecurities ( or angst ridden hate against Justin) by postulating that he does not in fact have any talent at all ( potentially – he might, I just don’t see it). This is because like other media members who produce work of “art” for the masses – Justin Bieber’s performance ( in terms of a music video) is not represented as an “ integral whole”. This is because the music company that he works for probably extracts the bits that they think work according to their formula and discard the bits that according to them are redundant. Therefore, Bieber is a mould and every bit a product himself of the culture industry. He has no say over how his videos should be edited/ what lighting makes his face look sexier or whom he should collaborate with – these are all pre-determined by the culture industry. Therefore, surely in part some of his success should be accrued ( okay a HUGE part of his success) to the culture industry itself. And yeah, he can sing on stage and all of that nuffnang but what I’m getting at is his VIDEOS okay? The ones that actually assimilate through every social medium and capture attention visually more than anything else.
Benjamin also suggests that because of this the audience’s identification with the actor ( or performer in this case) is really an identification with the camera and he calls this approach that of “testing” just like on a test. Basically this means, that if he winks at you and makes your heart flutter – yeah that is really just the camera instead. Also, the whole testing process is a sort of gauge of aptitude that the producers wish to portray and like mentioned above is usually directed at fitting into a mould. Another interesting dimension to note here is that – Benjamin asserts that a work of art has always been reproducible and the mechanical reproduction enhances this by increasing its intensity. However, when it comes to the quality of the art – as in the performance here, the performer usually has to forgo his “aura” because the aura is a unique aspect of art that cannot be reproduced. But this is in essence what makes a performer unique in the first place. Despite this, Benjamin suggests that a filmed performer has to operate with his whole living person and yet forgo his aura. For this lack of uniqueness – is not actually a problem since the greatest effects are seen with little acting and so the performer is just merely treated as a stage prop. This is sad yet I feel true, because it shows how mass media and the culture industry use mechanization and reproduction of culture to reduce and belittle the very essence of the intrinsic performer in a performer.
Next, this brings us on to the point of standardization and the lack of individuality that Adorno and Horkheimer also postulate. What they essentially put across is the mechanized characterization and categorization of mass culture – making it all encompassing and one which no one can avoid. Thus in a sense it is likened to a propaganda tool which forces one into conformity – since they are not given a choice to be excluded from the culture industry. This would explain why Justin Bieber’s songs are for instance so repetitive and yet successful – because the masses are taught and ingrained to like the same beat, the same form of lyrics and other musical compositions that escape me altogether. It’s like we’re trained to like something so much ( due to being constantly exposed to it) that anything apart from it seems dumb or stupid or is deemed terrible. So in a sense this top-down propaganda is successful in creating a standardized form of mass culture.
Lastly, James W. Carey puts across two views of communication that exist – a transmission view of communication and a ritual view of communication. In the former, the center of this idea of communication is the transmission of signals or messages over distance for the purpose of control. The roots in this view of communication, lie in essentially religious attitudes.
The latter is directed not toward the extension of messages in space but toward the maintenance of society in time and representing shared beliefs instead of imparting information. The central idea behind the ritual view of communication is a sacred ceremony that draws persons together in fellowship and commonality. Both models differ in terms of ethical implications and produce different forms of social relations. Carey suggests that our models of communication create what we pretend they merely describe. And in this sense, we not only describe behavior we create a particular aspect of culture and that determines in part the kind of communication world we live in. These communication models can in themselves, become social institutions which shape the reality and total experience we derive from society.
Sherilyn Tan
Adorno and Horkheimer elaborated on how cultural producers and the proliferation of mass media creates a mass culture. In their opinion, mass culture is detrimental as it leads to standardisation and mass production. Unique forms cease to exist under capitalism as products are all identical. A consumer culture also becomes more pervasive under capitalism. What used to be only available to the privileged few is now accessible to the masses, causing a lost of distinction between high and low culture.
The authors claim that people may lose their individuality due to societal pressure to consume and conform to what is deemed as “desirable”, as informed by advertising and the mass media. This may be evident in how certain products (yes Apple, even with their “flaws”) continue to garner attention and market traction, with queues formed at every new product launch. It is just simply seen as a “must-have” to some (or many). While people may feel that they are expressing their individuality by consuming certain products, Adorno and Horkheimer are critical of this and see this conformity to the generality as disastrous. They argue that people simply are not aware that they are powerless under the guise of freedom. However what does this then say of those who are aware (e.g Soci students), but still continue to purchase these products? What if people who consume these products genuinely like them, does this still render them powerless?
Additionally, they claim that mass media is a top-down broadcast system whereby the masses may become less able to draw distinctions between reality and the illusory realm that is created by advertising and/or propaganda in media messages. Under this unidirectional broadcast model, the masses are subjected to the underlying ideology and may become passive subjects who do not question and blindly follow rules and regulations. However, in today’s age of the Internet, anonymity and the rapid dissemination of information bottom-up from the ground, it seems that the authors’ view may not hold as true. It would be naive to assume that the masses are undirectionally accepting information presented to them in the news, newspapers etc wholesale. I would argue that many are aware that certain views portrayed by the main newspaper and news broadcasts, are prone to being filtered and appropriately “censored”. With the advent of social media and online citizen journalism sites (like STOMP), the masses are also able to have their say and put across their opinions.
Stanley Wong
This week’s readings talk about the role of media in perpetuating society, whereby two of the three have Marxist roots. I feel that Carey’s article sets the background for the other two readings, where he lays out two ways of understanding communication. The first way is to understand it in what most people understand by: the transmission of messages, where the ideas are spread to others in order to control them. The other way of understanding it is to see communication as a base of solidarity, whereby it gives participants a sense of community. As a side note, he goes on to talk about how cultural products shapes and constructs our reality and how we perceive it.
Walter Benjamin essay focuses on the role of art and paintings within modern society. Taking a historical approach, he discusses how mechanization has brought about the ease in producing and replicating. This leads to the ease of replicating art pieces for mass viewing in exhibitions. He argues that the process of allowing art to be viewed by the masses leads to it being devalued, since the masses seek distraction, while the spectator seeks concentration. However, Benjamin argues that mass culture offers potential to consumers; the meanings of the cultural products are no longer fixed by producers but are ascribed by consumers instead.
While Walter Benjamin talks about mass culture from the point of consumers and consumption, Adorno and Horkheimer discuss about it from the point of production and economics. For Adorno, power is in the hands of the cultural producers, where they have the power to dictate how a product is produced and how it is supposed to consume. They focus on the culture industry, where cultural products like art and paintings, have been standardized and commoditized for capitalist ends. Such processes devalue “high culture”, where their critical functions are negated and appropriated by the industry to earn profits. Another key point that Adorno and Horkheimer identifies is that work and leisure share a relationship, in that they perpetuate each other. Lastly, they argue that culture produced by the culture industry perpetuates existing power relations between workers and capitalists in the form of ideology, in that they distracts consumers form their own exploitation.
In contemporary society, we do see the ways in which author’s theories are applicable. For instance, classical music, which may be considered as “high culture” has been appropriated by producers for use in advertisements, devaluing them in a way. This can be seen in the below video:
At the same time, Adorno and Horkheimer also have a point in saying that work and leisure perpetuates capitalism. Our time is organized according to work and leisure; Monday to Friday for work, the weekends for leisure. To participate in leisure activities, one must participate in paid labor. I also agree with Walter Benjamin (and disagree with Adorno at the same time), in not treating the masses as a singular entity. This relates back to last week’s readings, where consumers interpret cultural products according to their lived lives and social contexts. As Carey points out, cultural products are also part of a larger repertoire of symbols that people use to interpret their realities. In this respect, Adorno and Horkheimer omit the interpretative aspect of the masses and treats culture (and communication) as unidirectional.
I will also like to go one step further to give more agency to the consumers by arguing that they have a productive dimension. For instance, the formation of subcultures often relies on the act of consumption of mass cultural productions. Members of subcultures sometimes appropriate these cultural products and imbue new meaning into them. These cultural products not only offer a form of identification and community, but may also be a form of symbolic resistance to the dominant social order as well. There are also other activities by consumers that are productive as well, like subtitling videos, creating fanfictions, or even creating memes or GIF images and imbuing them with new meaning by using them in other social contexts or situations online.
Evon Thung
Walter Benjamin
The mechanical reproduction of art though represents something new lacks authenticity. When something is reproduced, it is not produced at the time and space where the original was. Hence, Benjamin argued that the “aura” of the original is missing from the replica as the act of reproduction had changed the context of the original. The distinction between painting and photography aids in understanding this concept of “aura” as photograph is an image of the image one wish to capture while painting is the exact replica of the object in mind at that context.
James W.Carey
There are 2 types of view on communication. First, there is the transmission view of communication which is the commonest where the issue lies in communications being the ideological apparatus of imparting, sending and transmitting and giving dominant messages and information to others. The purpose of information dissemination is to control.
While, the ritual view of communication conceives communication as a process that allows and enacts societal information. The main concern lies in the actions that have been taken upon from what has been communicated. I would think that the main difference between the 2 views would be the participation from the receiver. In the transmission view, the receiver is passive and accepts whatever information while the receiver participates actively in the ritual view of communication.
Therefore to James, communication is a symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed. Hence, the study of communication should examine the actual process wherein significant symbolic forms are created, apprehended and used.
Adorno Horkheimer
Mechanical reproduction is done through the culture industry with standardization and mass production where the culture industry provides for everyone with the mission of controlling the audiences and spreading ideological messages. Such is in-line with the transmission view of communication.
With the culture industry, individuals are manipulated into docility and passivity with dominant ideology intoxicated which undermined their individuality and led the masses to be in agreement, value conformity and partake in ideological illusion.
I recall very vividly the time I watched Avatar in Imax. There was a group of elderly men seated next to me and when the film was creating Pandora, I saw the man next to me raise his hand as if he could touch the flowers he saw in 3d ‘directly’ in front of him. Personally I feel he definitely knew that they weren’t actually there but in that moment of ‘movie magic’ he rather forget reality and embrace what was unreal simply because it was better than reality.
‘When reality and fiction become blurred we lose the capacity to make logical decisions.’ Prof Han said this during lecture, about how we become dumb. This made an impact because of how he explained entertainment as the prolongation of work. You pay to escape the harsh reality by having to go back to it. I know this, yet after I write this blog post I’ll probably watch a movie. This is what is scary. Freud: we may not particularly act in the way that is best for us. The strength of the ideological control of the ‘new’ forms of entertainment knows no bounds. Carey’s ritual aspect of communication comes into play. I wanted to be ‘dumb’ and touch those beautiful flowers the same as everyone in the cinema because they were better than the flowers in reality (the way the masses had symbolically interpreted those flowers was planned by the producers when they used equipment to create the ‘fake’ beauty of those flowers.)
The lack of an opt out of this system (well, sleep I guess) brings to mind Freire’s, Pedagogy of the Oppressed where only the oppressed can free themselves but their structure of thinking has been conditioned by the oppressive system that they cannot consider themselves sufficiently clear to objectivize themselves to discover themselves outside the oppressors. What would my world be like without movies? (books and imagination perhaps) But now that we have movies we will never go back to a time when we didn’t and I am left to imagine what a time without movies was like without ever actually knowing.
Adorno & Horkheimer
What stood out for me in Adorno and Horkheimer’s reading the most was the notion of the “dulling of criticality.” The entertainment available to the masses do not serve to intellectually grow them but instead, are used to “dumb” people down, hence limiting their ability to critically think. The entertainment industry hence can grow into a sinister tool employed by authorities to control the masses without the masses realising it themselves. They think they are escaping their mundane, mechanical routine that revolves around work but they are merely falling into the traps of those at the top by succumbing to spending time and money on entertainment. This is especially scary today in the modern world where people are so hypnotized by the entertainment industry and indulge in TV marathons, mindless gossip about celebrities etc.
Benjamin
Benjamin expresses a similar concern to Adorno and Horkheimer. He states that anything that is a reproduction of the original is not real and this fakeness can trick us. This then affects sense perception which in a way is similar to the”dulling of criticality”. For example, the Hermes Birkin gives consumers a false sense that they are purchasing something exclusive and special. This is done by the exorbitant price tag attached to the bag as well as the waiting list that could make one wait for years to receive the bag. How special could this bag be if in reality, there is more than one of it available? It simply exists under the guise of exclusivity via marketing tactics employed.
I’m not sure if because it was an easier read, but I found Carey’s article pretty interesting. Like all common folks out there, I asked myself what do I first think of when I think of communication? I would say delivering of messages, talking, transmitting what you want to say to another person.
But Carey says that this view is too simplistic (like we are not thinking simple enough). His “ritual” explaining of communication makes a lot sense. So was how communication was actually compared to transportation (even before communication was seen more superior). The keyword is “distribution”. Our messages need to be distributed, not to one person, but it’s mass communication in a sense.
Carey gave the example of the newspapers. I have always thought to be critical, you question what is presented to you because the information in the newspapers comprise of advertisements, ideologies, messages carried by people in power. Yes, Carey says this is so. But, the important thing is how these newspapers, even if they serve very little functions, do not educate us as much (as we doubt them), the fact is, the messages are “habitually consumed” and they reach the masses, a community. The messages are hence distributed, and redistributed throughout the community, and shaping the culture of the society, shaping the historical changes. For this messages to work as a drama, they have to be situated in an environment that is suitable for their drama effects to take place with models and processes – “shared information circulating in an organic system”. Furthermore, we, everyone of us, are not just “readers” or “consumers” in a sense. We take part in all these drama as well!
Another interesting takeaway was how Carey mentioned how we don’t question communication because we see them as simply daily activities like talking, emailing, etc. This reminded me of the story of the button in White’s article. We often neglect these things that we see as a natural phenomenon, but in fact the underlying meaning and the development of these is not as simple as we think.
While reading both Benjamin, Horkheimer and Adorno, I wondered why they kept mentioning art as an important source of entertainment or culture. It was when I realised that art was of high value especially in the past. I do not relate to this as i am being brought up in a more modernised and mass cultural world. In addition, Singapore does not promote art as much. It is more in the Western countries that Art is more highly valued and recognised as high culture. I feel that high Art may be less relevant in today’s context since we are currently in a more digitised world where even art takes a new form.
Through Adorno and Horkheimer, I feel that technology has definitely allowed those in power to have more control over our lives. Despite having more choices in today’s world, the large conglomerates dominates the ideas that are transmitted to us. Although we do produce self reflexivity to some extent while consuming cultural products, there are still times when we ‘fall’ for the messages that are put across by the mediums. For example, an actor in a tv programme starts to drink coke during the show, it might indirectly spur a craving for coke among the audiences. They might think, yeah a can of coke would be good right now. Therefore, there may be some domination by those in power of our lives.
Korean dramas may be very popular as it is an illusion, the plot is created whereby some of us can relate to it. When we watch the sad scenes, it makes the audience either relate to the scene if they have been through or are going through that scene, if not it consoles the audience that their life isnt so bad afterall. ultimately, the audience feels happy when the drama ends with a happy ending because that is what everyone wants in their lives.
Benjamin talks about authenticity. However, I feel that authenticity is such a subjective term since something may be authentic to a person but less authentic to another based on the criteria that the item is judged upon. Authenticity also changes with time. Something that used to be authentic in the past may not be considered to be authentic now since majority of the things we consume and use are mass produced.
The transmission view that Carey mentions is a rather straightforward concept since many mediums pass messages across. However, the ritual view is more interesting. The symbols that are presented are constructed and allow for different interpretations. But that is what makes us human, the ability to think. This is culture. Without the different interpretations then those in power may be able to have a more concrete definition of ‘total domination’.
As the reading response contents that considering of culture is the basically of many sections in the communication.
Adorno and Horkheimer presented the culture industry enlightenment that can answer a lot of wonders in the term of mass deception. In fact, everything has own valuable in which representatives that should be on.
In the culture industry this imitation finally becomes absolute that it is strongly unbelievable without anything cannot be controlling by themselves and other way culture industry most rigid style proves to be the goal of liberalism that he believed. However, in this case it seem to be definitely in the dialectic of enlightenment and some of them extremely consisting together with dialectic and mass deception by the medium of culture.
It also familiar to Benjamin as contain of how mass be able to take a lot of features and explore the contents of information as a part of media control. The overview of illuminations can be explain more clarify to the theme of aura that the reproduce can not be take almost the audiences to play the attention that meant there are more attractive with the original product and of course the intensive can penetrated all over the human interest , hence the definition of the unique phenomenon is probably more flexible of the content in the illuminations and effected to the deception as well.
Appreciatively, a culture approach to communication as Carey recognized many words, particularly in the transmission of the idea that he explained to us at the deepest roots of our thinking that communication is a process whereby message are transmitted and distributed in space for the control of distance and people ( interesting exposition of the view ), so that communication basically can be approach by being come true and developed as well as the historical by moving away and found the creatively community in present.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer focus on some main themes like “What is culture industry?” and how it is linked to ‘power’ and ‘domination’. Also, an interesting term ‘total domination’ caught my attention. I’ve learnt that ‘culture industry’ has been coined by these two authors, and they argued that popular culture can be in comparison with a factory producing standardized cultural goods which is then used to control the masses. We actually are all trapped in this bubble where we just have to receive information being bombarded everywhere we go. It can be said that all the information fed to us are all synchronized with whichever institutions/ means involved. This relates to the power relations as the ones with the ‘means of production’ in Marx’s terms to produce information for the society are the ones in control of the others who do not have any. The totality of the culture industry is an issue. People are being controlled in a most extensive manner under the power and totality of capital. Constantly being fed with unfulfilled promise, people get the illusion that their promise will be fulfilled but not in reality, that explains mass deception. Both of them have a most extreme view where the audience do not have the chance to use their own imagination, and thinking but just acting as recipients of information. Audience has been reduced to be “dumb”, “victims” of the culture industry.
Benjamin writes about the repercussions of modernity in the work of art, particularly focusing on the loss of ‘aura’ via the mechanical reproduction of art. For Benjamin, aura meant the originality and authenticity of the piece of art, and it must exist in the same time & space frames of production. In this modern age, many technologies enable us to do modifications and reproduction of work of art, and this would mean that these pieces of art will not have aura anymore. Another important point is on the point of ‘shock effect’: technologies also create new forms of alienation – the shock is part of the alienation. Audience is alienated from their own thinking; there is just no time to process what is in front of them when they are watching a film. In the post-modern world, there are newer technologies such as 3Dimensional and 4Dimensional movie experiences catered to the masses and this would have brought about a new type of shock to the audience as well. This shock constitutes appealing to emotions and feelings.
James Carey came out with two views: “transmission view of culture/ communication” & “ritual view of communication”. Transmission of communication denotes a unidirectional approach where the main goal is to pass down the message to the intended audiences. Main point of ritual view of communication is to understand the symbolic meaning – communication having links to the shared societal beliefs and views. There is a connotation of ‘community’, ‘commonness’ and this is crucial as this means that people do not just receive media information as what it is simplistically. They will attach their own meanings and interpretation – which is a differing view from what Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer believe. However, James Carey mentioned that in reality, it is only right to be open to these various views of communication to further deepen our knowledge on human relations.
Adorno and Horkheimer talk about the culture industry as having domination over society through the achievement of standardization and mass production. Under such monopoly and domination, all mass culture is exactly the same. They mention that the culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises and is repressive. The culture industry promises the escape from the monotony and drudgery of work, but ultimately, it brings us back to being resigned to our fate.
Similar to Adorno and Horkheimer, Benjamin also talks about how the historical testimony and the authenticity of a product or work of art is questionable in light of its reproducibility. The authenticity of a work of art ceases to exist especially in the age of mechanical reproduction where art can easily be reproduced. Hence, the work of art has lost its presence in time and space, its uniqueness or its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. With the reproducibility of art, the way that society sees art has also changed.
Carey talks about the two alternative conceptions of communication in his article. Firstly there is the transmission view of communication that is derived from the desire to increase the speed and effect of messages as they travel in space. Communication is thus viewed as a process and a technology that would spread, transmit and disseminate knowledge, ideas and information farther and faster. The other view is the ritual view of communication that is directed toward the maintenance of society in time. To him, communication, through language and symbolic forms, shapes the human existence.
In response to Benjamin’s article, he argues that the aura of the actor is tied to his physical presence and that there can be no replacement of physical presence. This brings to mind 3D “movie-concerts” where actual concerts are filmed and then made available to the masses who were unable to catch the actual concerts. Hence these movies are shown in cinemas all around the world. This begs the question, when you actually see the “actor” in 3D, and the concert actually happened, does that cause the actor to lose his aura?
I think Benjamin would be rolling in his grave if he knew what was happening to the film industry today because these 3D concert things are kinda the epitome of manipulating consumer’s emotions. It makes us THINK we’re experiencing the real concert when actually, it’s just a movie. I’ve actually watched one of these 3D concert things (peer pressure does terrible things) and there was legit fangirling going on.
This also brings to mind the question on how aura is created. If these concerts are able to make consumers think it’s the real thing, then could it be argued that the aura of the actors, or in this case the musicians, have transcended time and space? ie physical presence is not needed.
Horkheimer and Adorno argues the culture industry as something marked by cultural homogeneity and predictability. Unlike Walter Benjamin, who places the power of culture products in the consumption of it, Horkheimer and Adorno places too much stress on production and distribution. I feel it is a very elitist view to assume that audiences are passive and will not practice critical thought when consuming cultural products. The use of ‘pseudo-individuality’ itself portrays the belief that cultural products hampers critical thought and there is no room for ‘authentic’ and ‘autonomous’ culture.
Walter Benjamin, however, puts the power of cultural products in the act of consumption. He believes meaning is produced in the act of consumption but mass media has led to consumerism and commodification. Technical reproduction challenges the ‘aura’ of cultural products and opens it for plurality of interpretation.
Hence, it is important to recognise the audience of the cultural products, and not just focus on the creators. The society which the product is produced in is important. Just as Carey’s article states, “communication is a symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed’. Cultural products, which can be considered as communication between the creator and audience, reflect the reality of the society that it is being produced in.
An example would be Malay dramas that are being shown on the tv. My parents as receivers of the cultural product, recognizes that the increase in marriage themes like polygamy in these dramas are also a reflection of how there is an increase in polygamous marriages and affairs in the society today. Additionally, critical thought is evident in the differing responses to the drama series with my dad being more infuriated about the issues while my mum seems more sympathetic. This reiterates that audiences of cultural products are not necessarily passive and they do practice critical thought.
I’ll use the example of Taiwanese/Korean Idol Dramas (something close to my heart) as an example that relates to this week’s readings. Some aspects of Idol Dramas, I realised, can really reflect parts of the text word-for-word. I was addicted to Idol Dramas at 13 and really believed in them, till reality came crashing down years later. The readings made me think about how constructed and ‘invented’ these Idol Dramas were, and how they influenced by perception of romance and love.
WALTER BENJAMIN
– He talks about how mass media is made to be easily reproduced today, and thus it loses its authentic ‘aura’ of exclusivity. He really has great foresight for someone writing from his time. This is true for Taiwan/Korean/Japanese Idol Dramas; they are made to be reproduced. Dramas are sometimes adapted from anime/comic books (Walter would call it the bastardisation of an original piece of work, the transformation of an original into something beyond recognition) and made into TV series spanning many Versions and Seasons. Each set of comics can span spin-offs in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, each country would buy franchisee rights to produce the show. And essentially, it’s reproduced and copied because the storylines are all the same. Just different actors in a different setting, with perhaps a minor plot changes. Think Boys over Flowers and Hana Yori Dango.
– Definitely, art is no longer fixed in one place today, it moves (unlike the fixed art pieces in religious settings). It allows people all over the world to have easy access to it, at their own time and pace. For Idol Dramas, you can get them almost anywhere from DVD boxsets to pirated copies online – it’s really has a mass audience and hardly any exclusivity.
– He talks about how the intermediary of the camera lens makes art (film, in his example) lose its aura and authenticity. He talks about how the film is constructed not by the performer, but by the camera lens, the special effects and the film editor. Indeed, Idol Dramas are constructed with the same things and with writers and producers dreaming up the entire storyline. None of it is created by the performer – the performer/actor is just a prop in the whole show. He is unable to influence a performance the same way a theatre performer can. For instance, an Idol Drama would look flawless (and thus less authentic) as it’d be edited to perfection. But a stage play would have visible flaws, rendering it more authentic.
– Lastly, Walter says that individual reactions to mass media are predetermined by mass audience response. This is especially true in the case of reading reviews of a particular show/drama. One’s individual reaction to a show would be directly influenced by what the mass audience says – if the mass online reviews of an idol drama are negative, I may not watch it at all, or I may just be skeptical about it. (the same applies to all films and TV programmes today.)
HORKHEIMER AND ADORNO
– One point really stood out word-for-word: “Love is downgraded to romance”. How enlightening this is! In Idol Dramas, only romance seems to be portrayed. Copious Taiwan/Korean dramas have taught me about how love is sweetened by fluffy marshmallows, hot chocolate and endless kissing. Isn’t this purely romance? I think the Idol Dramas really tell me nothing about what true love is. They’re just beautifully crafted pictures of romance.
– And yes, there is repressed sexual energy exhibited in Idol Dramas. (As they’re not full-fledged porn shows, they try to keep it as kid-friendly as possible). “Things can never go that far” in mass media as it’s after all, for the mass audience. So Idol Dramas amp up the heat with lots of good looking stars in figure-flattering clothes doing lots of kissing. And there’s the mandatory shower scene of a topless guy/hunk in almost every show. Indeed, it’s “pornographic and prudish” at the same time.
– “Life in the late Capitalist era is a constant initiation rite. Everyone must show that he wholly identifies himself with the power which is belabouring him”. This power – mass culture/media – is the one thing everyone wants to embody. True enough, I was caught up in the K-Drama craze in Secondary school and it was always ‘cool’ to be one of those who knew the latest about the dramas. I fully identified with the ‘power’ of Idol Dramas and was perfectly happy to be ‘initiated’ into that K-drama culture. We’d scourge for the best illegal websites to watch the latest uploads, till our eyes grew watery, red and tired. Talk about the “defenselessness” of subjecting ourselves to the power of Idol Dramas.
JAMES W. CAREY
– He talks about how art is a presentation of reality that “gives life and overall form, order and tone”. Indeed, Idol Dramas, at the literal level, are all about order and tone. They have similar love/romance story-lines and cookie-cutter Idols who always look perfect. At the figurative level, perhaps Idol Dramas project a kind of structure about how to make money out of showbiz. It’s a tried-and-tested, economically successful model that can be marketed all over the world. Idol Dramas are “invented cultural forms” for the larger goal of profit. The formula – borrowed story-lines, good looking stars, some fluffy romance and kissing – seems to sell very well.
– Reality is also constructed via shared meaning and this can be fleshed out in idol Dramas. Like how communication “fosters social bonds” and binds us together, Idol Dramas do the same too. The aspects of “communal” and “community” are developed as the love-sick teens in a school watch the same idol drama together. We huddle together in front of laptops, share food and pull all-nighters for an idol drama. Yup it bonds.
– “Significant symbolic forms are created, apprehended and used”. For instance, after watching Idol Dramas, we may have had a certain perception of romance. If a guy pulls of his jacket for you on a cold, snowy day, it means that he loves you. If he says your name when he’s drunk, it means that he loves/likes you. All these ‘signs’ and ‘symbols’ I’ve picked up from idol dramas reinforced a certain image of romance in my mind. These signs become significant when they’re lapped up and used by teenagers as romance guides. Also, romance signs can be used for marketing too. A unique instance was this Korean drama, where the lead actress sewed a life-sized plush figurine and attached her husband’s photo to it. And she hugged it around her home. Mini Toons in Singapore then released sets of the plush figures, in three different sizes – large, medium and small (to hang on your bag as a keychain). They were sold in two colours – white and pink. Idol Dramas thus can create new symbols and these symbols can be used for marketing or used to satisfy the desires of people who believed the symbols.
Thank you for reading this 🙂
In “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, Hockheimer and Adorno write a powerful critique about mass media, also dubbed the “central text of the Frankfurt school”. Let’s bear in mind that the pair, who were members of the Marxist-inspired Frankfurt school, wrote this during the 1940s, after escaping from Germany to the USA during WWII.
Adorno and Hockheimer first address the “absolute power of capitalism”, drawing a clear distinction between producers and consumers. They assert that content produced on film and radio “no longer pretend to be art”, unreservedly slamming the “culture industry” as “cheating its consumers”.
Fundamentally, they view the media as creating a top-down relationship between its creators and consumers, and a form of control of those in authority.
“The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers” and “deceived masses”.
They also find fault with standardisation and mass production, claiming that it destroys individuality. A parallel could be drawn to the Marxist thought of Man the Maker and how the modern production system alienates us from what man produces.
The media, an accomplice (or subordinate) of the capitalist system, further alienates man from himself, and instead makes him part of a collective that have been fed messages that congeal into ideologies originated from those in power.
Adorno and Hockheimer’s narrative is somewhat applicable to media in society today, though not entirely true.
The advent of social media has significantly blurred the lines of producers and consumers. I produce and consume media almost at the same time. For example, I watch the latest video of my favourite artiste posted on Facebook, and I immediately share it on my wall. I can even change or enhance the meaning of the video through my caption. Feedback is also instantaneous. Two seconds later, a friend has Liked and commented. Following the success of my post, I post more, hoping to generate even more viewership. Thus, as a consumer, I’m not fed with messages.
In fact, I consume so I can produce.
Adorno and Hockheimer theory that art is only valuable if it is exclusive and something unattainable for the masses, holds true till today. This thought is still replicated in society in the form of high art. Interestingly, we see this exclusivity trying to be adopted in pop culture too – which is the “indie” genre.
The rules of this exclusive circle, including different art forms like film, music, photography, art, is: the smaller the circle, the more authentic the art is. The less people know about a particular band, the more ‘underground’ it is, the more one gets to keep an exclusive status and exhibit his individualism. It’s funny how our tastes in consumerism almost determine the kind of people we are.
James Carey
The essay is well organized. James Carey put forward several question towards the literature of John Dewey and then he shared his thoughts on the specific definition of communication and what role does culture play in the process of transmission.
He points out that the transmission view of communication is the commonest in our culture, in other words, imparting, sending, transmitting, and giving information to others. From his point of view, he states that communication is a process whereby messages are transmitted and distributed in space for the control of distance and people.
The thing I found most interesting is his argument that the roots of the transmission view of communication, in his culture at least, lie in essentially religious attitudes. I don’t quite agree with his statement that religious, beyond political and mercantilistic, is the real motive behind vast movement. Admittedly, it did lead a preacher of the era in western countries and other countries to some extent.
But in China and some other countries, religion doesn’t play a part in the development of society, not to mention that transportation could be a form of communication with profoundly religious explications.
Horkheimer
According to Horkheimer, it is not true that cultural chaos are caused by the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of last remnants of pre-capitalism, technological and social differentiation or specialization.
It means that popular culture is just like a “factory producing standardized cultural goods” — films, radio programs, magazines, etc. — that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity. The inherent danger of the culture industry is the cultivation of false psychological needs that can only be met and satisfied by the products of capitalism; thus Adorno and Horkheimer especially perceived mass-produced culture as dangerous to the more technically and intellectually difficult high arts.
From his point of view, culture industry involves movies, radio and magazine is leading the direction of society to a wrong way where the system they create focus on its economic value instead of art. To make it worse, it threatens individual consciousness and it makes the real masterpieces pale in comparison to those cater to publics.
In contrast, true psychological needs are freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness, which refer to an earlier demarcation of human needs.
In my opinion, the profits shouldn’t mix with public interest.
In Adorno and Horkheimer’s article, the culture industry, through various standardized “art” forms, has a very pervasive way of contriving the experience of our social lives, in such a way that we are entrapped from being reflexive, thinking beings. The authors too argue that in the commodification of culture, “pseudo individuality is rife” and that “the peculiarity of the self is a monopoly commodity determined by society” (pp. 154). Those cool boots one has to buy to carve one’s identity as a unique individual is rubbish, because “no object has an inherent value; it is valuable only to the extent that it can be exchanged.” (pp. 158) Like any other industrial product, said boots are mass produced only to incite desires of individuality to thousands who blindly seek them. Also, “Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work. It is sought after as an escape from the mechanized work process, and to recruit strength in order to be able to cope with it again.” (pp. 137) Should that be true, it is alienation to the point that I didn’t realize the streamed TV shows I so excited to watch at the end of the day was indoctrinated in my fate of perpetual subordination.
In Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, the author explains how art “has left the realm of the “beautiful semblance” which, so far, had been taken to be the only sphere where art could thrive.” (pp. 230) Like Adorno and Horkheimer, he agrees that somehow art is devalued and cheapened to a mass-cultural commodity. He uses the notion of “aura”, that is, the uniqueness of expression of the cult (pp. 223), which art in the age of mechanical reproduction dearly lacks. He continues to establish how art has aura, and that “the accent is on the cult value” vis-a-vis “the exhibition value of the work.” (pp. 224) He argues that art matters due to “their existence, not their being on view” (pp. 224-225), and claims “today the cult value would seem to demand that the work of art remain hidden.” (pp. 225) My assumption of this is that art is considered art only when it has exclusive and/or limited visibility. Henceforth, art has an esoteric quality in the sense that it is restricted only to those who can comprehend and appreciate it fully. It seems if art is not on full publicity and viewing pleasure of the masses, then art can remain valued. This is interesting and upon understanding this, I try to apply to today’s contemporary context. I wonder if the digital images of original brilliant art works I found on tumblr matter to be art or not. And following Benjamin’s argument on what makes art art, I think he will find Instagram photographs to be revolting.
James Carey’s A Cultural Approach to Communication introduces two views of communication: transmission and ritual. I feel his article has a more symbolic interactionist slant as compared to first two which are more critical. Particularly due to his assertion of the symbolic production of reality, supported by McLuhan’s metaphor ‘the fish is unaware of the water’ (pp. 9), that one has to be aware of the taken-for-granted practices and symbolic elements of everyday life to better understand communication. “Similarly, communication, through language and other symbolic forms, comprises the ambience of human existence (pp. 9) and “We create, express, and convey out knowledge of and attitudes toward reality through the construction of a variety of symbol systems” (pp. 13) as evidence. He includes that symbolic forms possess displacement and productivity (pp. 11) and has a dual capacity i.e., “symbols of” and “symbols for” (pp. 12). Somehow I feel that Carey is against the transmission model (aka ‘economic order’) and is for the ritual model (aka ‘ritual order’), asserting that it is a “not only [a]… “wonderful” process but to give us a way in which to rebuild a model of and for communication of some restorative value in reshaping our common culture.” (pp. 16) I would like to understand more on this preference as it was only explicitly explained in the last page.
( PICTURE OF JUSTIN BIEBER – https://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1410&bih=738&q=justin+biber&oq=justin+biber&gs_l=img.3..0i10l2j0j0i10l2j0j0i10l3j0.1878.3811.0.3883.13.13.0.0.0.0.99.540.13.13.0.ernk_timecombined…0…1.1.32.img..0.13.539.zWFXIJXc2rg#hl=en&q=justin+bieber&spell=1&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=w2MpQ-axmw6WnM%253A%3BQUgVE2Di4tzXZM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fjustinbiebero.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252Fjustin-bieber-2013-new-photo.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fjustinbiebero.com%252Fjustin-bieber-2013-new-photo%3B1505%3B1500 ) – WHY CANT IT BE PASTED IN THIS COMMENT BOX THINGY ? 🙁
Anyway,
Yes, that IS Justin Bieber. I apologize in advance if you are a Belieber ( god bless you) but if like me, you are mad pissed that at the age of nineteen where you find yourself broke every other day, there’s a teen just like you who has an estimated worth of US $130 million for his “talent” in the music industry. Not that I do not believe that Justin doesn’t earn every bit of his money – it’s just that I never quite believed he was talented you know? Yeah sure he sings wayyyyy better than I could ever bring myself to but seriously music videos like “ Baby” and “ Eenie Meenie Minnie Mo” ? THAT’s what gets you to millionaire superstardom?
Thankfully, Walter Benjamin has rested my insecurities ( or angst ridden hate against Justin) by postulating that he does not in fact have any talent at all ( potentially – he might, I just don’t see it). This is because like other media members who produce work of “art” for the masses – Justin Bieber’s performance ( in terms of a music video) is not represented as an “ integral whole”. This is because the music company that he works for probably extracts the bits that they think work according to their formula and discard the bits that according to them are redundant. Therefore, Bieber is a mould and every bit a product himself of the culture industry. He has no say over how his videos should be edited/ what lighting makes his face look sexier or whom he should collaborate with – these are all pre-determined by the culture industry. Therefore, surely in part some of his success should be accrued ( okay a HUGE part of his success) to the culture industry itself. And yeah, he can sing on stage and all of that nuffnang but what I’m getting at is his VIDEOS okay? The ones that actually assimilate through every social medium and capture attention visually more than anything else.
Benjamin also suggests that because of this the audience’s identification with the actor ( or performer in this case) is really an identification with the camera and he calls this approach that of “testing” just like on a test. Basically this means, that if he winks at you and makes your heart flutter – yeah that is really just the camera instead. Also, the whole testing process is a sort of gauge of aptitude that the producers wish to portray and like mentioned above is usually directed at fitting into a mould. Another interesting dimension to note here is that – Benjamin asserts that a work of art has always been reproducible and the mechanical reproduction enhances this by increasing its intensity. However, when it comes to the quality of the art – as in the performance here, the performer usually has to forgo his “aura” because the aura is a unique aspect of art that cannot be reproduced. But this is in essence what makes a performer unique in the first place. Despite this, Benjamin suggests that a filmed performer has to operate with his whole living person and yet forgo his aura. For this lack of uniqueness – is not actually a problem since the greatest effects are seen with little acting and so the performer is just merely treated as a stage prop. This is sad yet I feel true, because it shows how mass media and the culture industry use mechanization and reproduction of culture to reduce and belittle the very essence of the intrinsic performer in a performer.
Next, this brings us on to the point of standardization and the lack of individuality that Adorno and Horkheimer also postulate. What they essentially put across is the mechanized characterization and categorization of mass culture – making it all encompassing and one which no one can avoid. Thus in a sense it is likened to a propaganda tool which forces one into conformity – since they are not given a choice to be excluded from the culture industry. This would explain why Justin Bieber’s songs are for instance so repetitive and yet successful – because the masses are taught and ingrained to like the same beat, the same form of lyrics and other musical compositions that escape me altogether. It’s like we’re trained to like something so much ( due to being constantly exposed to it) that anything apart from it seems dumb or stupid or is deemed terrible. So in a sense this top-down propaganda is successful in creating a standardized form of mass culture.
Lastly, James W. Carey puts across two views of communication that exist – a transmission view of communication and a ritual view of communication. In the former, the center of this idea of communication is the transmission of signals or messages over distance for the purpose of control. The roots in this view of communication, lie in essentially religious attitudes.
The latter is directed not toward the extension of messages in space but toward the maintenance of society in time and representing shared beliefs instead of imparting information. The central idea behind the ritual view of communication is a sacred ceremony that draws persons together in fellowship and commonality. Both models differ in terms of ethical implications and produce different forms of social relations. Carey suggests that our models of communication create what we pretend they merely describe. And in this sense, we not only describe behavior we create a particular aspect of culture and that determines in part the kind of communication world we live in. These communication models can in themselves, become social institutions which shape the reality and total experience we derive from society.
Adorno and Horkheimer elaborated on how cultural producers and the proliferation of mass media creates a mass culture. In their opinion, mass culture is detrimental as it leads to standardisation and mass production. Unique forms cease to exist under capitalism as products are all identical. A consumer culture also becomes more pervasive under capitalism. What used to be only available to the privileged few is now accessible to the masses, causing a lost of distinction between high and low culture.
The authors claim that people may lose their individuality due to societal pressure to consume and conform to what is deemed as “desirable”, as informed by advertising and the mass media. This may be evident in how certain products (yes Apple, even with their “flaws”) continue to garner attention and market traction, with queues formed at every new product launch. It is just simply seen as a “must-have” to some (or many). While people may feel that they are expressing their individuality by consuming certain products, Adorno and Horkheimer are critical of this and see this conformity to the generality as disastrous. They argue that people simply are not aware that they are powerless under the guise of freedom. However what does this then say of those who are aware (e.g Soci students), but still continue to purchase these products? What if people who consume these products genuinely like them, does this still render them powerless?
Additionally, they claim that mass media is a top-down broadcast system whereby the masses may become less able to draw distinctions between reality and the illusory realm that is created by advertising and/or propaganda in media messages. Under this unidirectional broadcast model, the masses are subjected to the underlying ideology and may become passive subjects who do not question and blindly follow rules and regulations. However, in today’s age of the Internet, anonymity and the rapid dissemination of information bottom-up from the ground, it seems that the authors’ view may not hold as true. It would be naive to assume that the masses are undirectionally accepting information presented to them in the news, newspapers etc wholesale. I would argue that many are aware that certain views portrayed by the main newspaper and news broadcasts, are prone to being filtered and appropriately “censored”. With the advent of social media and online citizen journalism sites (like STOMP), the masses are also able to have their say and put across their opinions.
This week’s readings talk about the role of media in perpetuating society, whereby two of the three have Marxist roots. I feel that Carey’s article sets the background for the other two readings, where he lays out two ways of understanding communication. The first way is to understand it in what most people understand by: the transmission of messages, where the ideas are spread to others in order to control them. The other way of understanding it is to see communication as a base of solidarity, whereby it gives participants a sense of community. As a side note, he goes on to talk about how cultural products shapes and constructs our reality and how we perceive it.
Walter Benjamin essay focuses on the role of art and paintings within modern society. Taking a historical approach, he discusses how mechanization has brought about the ease in producing and replicating. This leads to the ease of replicating art pieces for mass viewing in exhibitions. He argues that the process of allowing art to be viewed by the masses leads to it being devalued, since the masses seek distraction, while the spectator seeks concentration. However, Benjamin argues that mass culture offers potential to consumers; the meanings of the cultural products are no longer fixed by producers but are ascribed by consumers instead.
While Walter Benjamin talks about mass culture from the point of consumers and consumption, Adorno and Horkheimer discuss about it from the point of production and economics. For Adorno, power is in the hands of the cultural producers, where they have the power to dictate how a product is produced and how it is supposed to consume. They focus on the culture industry, where cultural products like art and paintings, have been standardized and commoditized for capitalist ends. Such processes devalue “high culture”, where their critical functions are negated and appropriated by the industry to earn profits. Another key point that Adorno and Horkheimer identifies is that work and leisure share a relationship, in that they perpetuate each other. Lastly, they argue that culture produced by the culture industry perpetuates existing power relations between workers and capitalists in the form of ideology, in that they distracts consumers form their own exploitation.
In contemporary society, we do see the ways in which author’s theories are applicable. For instance, classical music, which may be considered as “high culture” has been appropriated by producers for use in advertisements, devaluing them in a way. This can be seen in the below video:
http://youtu.be/Um9KsrH377A
At the same time, Adorno and Horkheimer also have a point in saying that work and leisure perpetuates capitalism. Our time is organized according to work and leisure; Monday to Friday for work, the weekends for leisure. To participate in leisure activities, one must participate in paid labor. I also agree with Walter Benjamin (and disagree with Adorno at the same time), in not treating the masses as a singular entity. This relates back to last week’s readings, where consumers interpret cultural products according to their lived lives and social contexts. As Carey points out, cultural products are also part of a larger repertoire of symbols that people use to interpret their realities. In this respect, Adorno and Horkheimer omit the interpretative aspect of the masses and treats culture (and communication) as unidirectional.
I will also like to go one step further to give more agency to the consumers by arguing that they have a productive dimension. For instance, the formation of subcultures often relies on the act of consumption of mass cultural productions. Members of subcultures sometimes appropriate these cultural products and imbue new meaning into them. These cultural products not only offer a form of identification and community, but may also be a form of symbolic resistance to the dominant social order as well. There are also other activities by consumers that are productive as well, like subtitling videos, creating fanfictions, or even creating memes or GIF images and imbuing them with new meaning by using them in other social contexts or situations online.
Walter Benjamin
The mechanical reproduction of art though represents something new lacks authenticity. When something is reproduced, it is not produced at the time and space where the original was. Hence, Benjamin argued that the “aura” of the original is missing from the replica as the act of reproduction had changed the context of the original. The distinction between painting and photography aids in understanding this concept of “aura” as photograph is an image of the image one wish to capture while painting is the exact replica of the object in mind at that context.
James W.Carey
There are 2 types of view on communication. First, there is the transmission view of communication which is the commonest where the issue lies in communications being the ideological apparatus of imparting, sending and transmitting and giving dominant messages and information to others. The purpose of information dissemination is to control.
While, the ritual view of communication conceives communication as a process that allows and enacts societal information. The main concern lies in the actions that have been taken upon from what has been communicated. I would think that the main difference between the 2 views would be the participation from the receiver. In the transmission view, the receiver is passive and accepts whatever information while the receiver participates actively in the ritual view of communication.
Therefore to James, communication is a symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed. Hence, the study of communication should examine the actual process wherein significant symbolic forms are created, apprehended and used.
Adorno Horkheimer
Mechanical reproduction is done through the culture industry with standardization and mass production where the culture industry provides for everyone with the mission of controlling the audiences and spreading ideological messages. Such is in-line with the transmission view of communication.
With the culture industry, individuals are manipulated into docility and passivity with dominant ideology intoxicated which undermined their individuality and led the masses to be in agreement, value conformity and partake in ideological illusion.