Adorno is a hack, jazz is good, Eddie Hazel is a maestro, art can still be made in systems that aren't ideal.
Adorno is a hack, jazz is good, Eddie Hazel is a maestro, art can still be made...
Reminder that Adorno was literally a dimwit whose brain was too slow for movies
Every visit to the cinema, despite the utmost watchfulness, leaves me dumber and worse than before. They [sound films] are so designed that quickness, powers of observation, and experience are undeniably needed to apprehend them at all; yet sustained thought is out of the question if the spectator is not to miss the relentless rush of facts.
fuck off you pop loving pleb, adorno was literally right about everything. stop supporting the cultural industry
art can still be made in systems that aren't ideal
this is one of the more idiotic things I've seen here.
If you don't understand something, better admit it openly, instead of assuming a haughty stance you have no intellectual right to assume. You haven't even began to grasp negative dialectics.
If art can't be made in a non-ideal system, then art can't be made.
Adorno tried to warn us but we didn't listen
Which is part of my problem with Adorno, the man's such a pessimist.
Open dialectics would be a more reasonable translation of what he was trying to describe, or in other words trying to dress up as philosophical genius the idea that the outcome of events always have an element of uncertainty.
That still doesn't explain why anything created within the culture industry is necessarily soulless. Can we not say the same of much classical, given that it was produce under patronage? Is that not an industry of culture on the smaller scale that was possible at the time?
The system of patronage is nothing like capitalist production of art. Just because there's money involved doesn't mean they're the same.
hey I enjoy this
no you don't, you're just being placated
but I'm happy
no you're not
Sick argument bro
Adorno getting BTFO
the decadent consumerist culture was created by leftist "progressive" ideas, not capitalism.
hardline capitalism is not even concerned with culture. modern post 60s society is an unholy marriage between leftist culture and right wing economics
But material wealth is a primary incentive, is it not? Not just money, but guarantee of more comfortable lifestyle and surroundings.
Not that that's the only difference, of course; there are larger groups of people who will generally work on a pop track or album. I don't think that necessarily means that something good will come of it, but neither do I think that it will necessarily lead to something soulless or worthless. Hence why I prefer the term 'open dialectics' to 'negative dialectics'. Adorno was a very pessimistic lad; the man said 'Writing poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric'. I think those are the words of a coward who hasn't considered history enough.
You're happy in your little bubble while the world around you decays. Congratulations.
hardline capitalism is not even concerned with culture
Which is why it erodes genuine culture. Or literally produces no culture. Whichever.
the decadent consumerist culture was created by leftist "progressive" ideas
I sort of agree. Neo-liberalism is quite a cancer and it falls easily under the control of capitalism.
implying I can't multitask
Neo-liberalism is quite a cancer and it falls easily under the control of capitalism
Just so you know, neo-liberalism tends to refer to a philosophy similar to Libertarianism, not progressive leftism
Or perhaps it's possible to take joy from something imperfect while also finding meaningful tasks to improve the situation? Perhaps man can contain multiple facets?
Again, my problem with Adorno, the eternal pessimist dressing up as an optimist. He walks on absolute lines.
I agree with half the shit he writes but goddamn he's too anal and I think that drives people who might actually take a good point from his work away and leaves only those who already stand in agreement anyway.
I made the thread but
hardline capitalism is not even concerned with culture
Don't be silly. This is where Adorno is right about negative dialectics;
modern post 60s society is an unholy marriage between leftist culture and right wing economics
It is precisely this, the synthesis of mainstream culture and counter-culture into something rather unholy.
Rather a continuation of Hegelian dialectics via its critique.
Which is part of my problem with Adorno, the man's such a pessimist.
I disagree. His oeuvre is validly utopian.
That still doesn't explain why anything created within the culture industry is necessarily soulless
First of all, what is the "soul" in this context? As critical philosophy saw it, there is the subject whose destiny and purpose is to create, invent and inquire freely. Modern industrial ideology of labor is nothing but a dire infringement on these rights. The structure of industrial production in a mass society excludes this human subject as such, substituting for it manufactured forms or entertainment. One of major implications of this is an anti-historical cultural dimension where the subject of history as such is no more.
Can we not say the same of much classical, given that it was produced under patronage
No we can not. It didn't matter because it 1) existed in a pre-industrialized society, 2) still was contextualized in history. Those patrons were not a class in a sense of modern capital's class.
His oeuvre is validly utopian.
I only think you could consider it validly utopian if it sufficiently impelled in its readers a desire to fulfil the utopia that is envisioned. Adorno's style precludes that, at least to my eye. The medium is the message.
First of all, what is the "soul" in this context? As critical philosophy saw it, there is the subject whose destiny and purpose is to create, invent and inquire freely.
I guess I don't see it as critical philosophy does. I believe that the soul can only create when it has material to create with, and that adversity is one of the materials that it utilizes to create.
Modern industrial ideology of labor is nothing but a dire infringement on these rights.
This assumes that the rights each individual should desire are the same between all individuals; it also assumes that prior conditions did not also contain such infringements on these rights.
The structure of industrial production in a mass society excludes this human subject as such, substituting for it manufactured forms or entertainment.
What do we mean by 'excludes' here, precisely?
One of major implications of this is an anti-historical cultural dimension where the subject of history as such is no more.
Are not all subjects lost to time?
No we can not. It didn't matter because it 1) existed in a pre-industrialized society, 2) still was contextualized in history.
1) So? We're talking of the value the music has to the listener here. We've already established that the incentive has an effect on the production of the music. What is the value of the music to the listener? How is classical music of more value to the listener than popular?
2)Where do we draw the line of history, then, beyond which the production of music becomes element of the culture industry? Or, at least, can you give some basal examples, or a transitional period?
I apologize if this is getting lengthy, I'm intrigued by your answers. Adorno has a very German philosophy.
Nice mental gymnastics retarded nigger.
What books I need to read to understand all this shit you fags are talking?
Essentially, Adorno may have decent points, but how he expresses it corrupts his message; his writing is typical of Northwestern European philosophy. The emphasis of difficult work as pleasurable and hedonistic pleasure as inherently sinful is threaded strongly throughout his work, though he'd likely balk at ever being associated with such theological conceits as 'sin'. Germanic depressive tendency is clear in his writing.
Bourgeois sport [wants] to differentiate itself strictly from play. Its bestial seriousness consists in the fact that instead of reamaining faithful to the dream of freedom by getting away from purposiveness, the treatment of play as a duty puts it among useful purposes and thereby wipes out the trace of freedom in it. This is particularly valid for contemporary mass music. It is only play as a repetition of prescribed models, and the playful release from responsibility which is thereby achieved does not reduce at all the time devoted to duty except by transferring the responsibility to the models, the following of which one makes into a duty for himself.
Here Adorno traps himself in a double bind. He criticizes play which includes elements of routine, and yet proscribes a routine of lacking routine to play. The man has no appreciation that for some, it is the routine that makes the play joyous. He rejects the idea of non-choosing; the Germanic mind requires a concrete choice be made.
Perhaps this is why I gravitate more strongly to French and Italian philosophers, at least Camus knew how to have a good time without getting upset about it.
OP, I dislike the man intensely but his work is worth a read nonetheless, if nothing else because of its historical significance.
go on Sup Forums
see CULTURAL MARXISTS
imagine my shock!
Irony is the modern university system could be framed as a dialectic synthesis of Adorno's cultural Marxism (the Frankfurt school is one of the areas where this term actually seems appropriate) and a hypercapitalist consumer-driven model.
I think the man would shit himself if he realized what he wrought.
what do you homosexuals think about this
Given the subject matter of the thread, I think it's a better discussion of industries of culture than Adorno, most certainly. Adorno commands much respect in academic circles but the oblique manner in which he writes is irritating and as I said earlier, it corrupts his message.
In some ways, however, I disagree with his central premise. I've seen both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany construed before as capitalist, and in some ways I agree; I don't think that capitalism is a state system in the same way that fascism and socialism are. If I were pressed for a word that describes modern Western governments, I'd say that corporate internationalist or neoliberal are more accurate descriptors. That being said, I do agree with his assertion that the 2008 financial crisis and resulting bailouts are evidence of the current political system being seen as too fundamental to fail.
Irony is the fact that the man literally suffered from the same problems that "conservatives" in college today like to complain about
For the summer semester Adorno planned a lecture course entitled "An Introduction to Dialectical Thinking," as well as a seminar on the dialectics of subject and object. But at the first lecture Adorno's attempt to open up the lecture and invite questions whenever they arose degenerated into a disruption from which he quickly fled: after a student wrote on the blackboard "If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease," three women students approached the lectern, bared their breasts and scattered flower petals over his head. Yet Adorno continued to resist blanket condemnations of the protest movement which would have only strengthened the conservative thesis according to which political irrationalism was the result of Adorno's teaching. After further disruptions to his lectures, Adorno canceled the lectures for the rest of the seminar, continuing only with his philosophy seminar. In the summer of 1969, weary from these activities, Adorno returned once again to Zermatt, Switzerland, at the foot of Matterhorn to restore his strength. On August 6 he died of a heart attack.
Proto SJW kind of killed him
The culture industry is a real problem, it mostly exposes the problem with humans which is that we are so easily manipulated, even if it's not beneficial to us.
I don't really care that much about it now though, people who listen to pop that much usually aren't the audience you want to reach anyways, and if it is find a way to reach them. There's always a way of producing something in such a way that it appeals to many people and is still qualitative, and it will expose lazy pop productions for what they are: bad music.
I recommend culture industry reconsidered, it explains the main point hes trying to make, see: icce.rug.nl
What was their reasoning for protesting Adorno?
Tradcon/Frankfurt School alliance when?
said poetry was inviable after Auschwitz
butthurt jew lmao
The french "philosophers" you are thinking about are sociologist at best.