Adorno's Culture Industry

Home , Artistic integrity, Artistic merit, Creativity, Culture industry, Simon Cowell

ADORNO’S CULTURE INDUSTRY: THE “THING” WITH COMMODIFYING CREATIVITY

KRISTEN HERRINGTON

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (Politics)

Acadia University Fall Convocation 2014

This thesis by KRISTEN HERRINGTON was defended successfully in an oral examination on MAY 8, 2014.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

______Dr. Marc Ramsay, Chair

______Dr. Max Haiven, External Reader

______Dr. Geoffrey Whitehall, Internal Reader

______Dr. Andrew Biro, Supervisor

______Dr. Ian Stewart, Head/Director

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS (POLITICS)

………………………………………….

This thesis by KRISTEN HERRINGTON was defended successfully in an oral examination on MAY 8, 2014.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

Dr. Marc Ramsay, Chair

Dr. Max Haiven, External Reader

Dr. Geoffrey Whitehall, Internal Reader

Dr. A. Biro, Supervisor

Ian Stewart, Head (Program Coordinator)

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies as satisfying the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS (POLITICS).

iii

I, KRISTEN HERRINGTON, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______Kristen Herrington, Author

______Dr. Andrew Biro, Supervisor

______Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract vii

Acknowledgements viii

1. Introduction: Interpreting Adorno 1

Objective and Argument 5

Artist Introductions 8

2. The Culture Industry: Exploring the “Thing” 14

Deviation: Selling out or Setting Trends, it’s all Boring in the End 15

Predictability: Art Reflects Life 29

The (un)Freedom of Leisure Time 32

3. Capitalism: Fitting in(to) Mass-Production 40

Globalization: Perpetuating the Culture Industry 43

Industrializing Entertainment and Meeting Consumer Demands 45

Commodification: The Sequel 53

4. High Art versus Light Art: Class Structure and Art 56

The Purpose of Art 62

Contemporary Society: the Age of Technology 66

Contemporary “Reality” and Social Expectations 74

5. Subjectivity/Objectivity: The Decision is not Yours 87

Methods of the Culture Industry: What Sells? 95

6. Conclusion: the Artist’s Truth 101

Bibliography 108

Appendix 111

Letter to Artist 111

Informed Consent Form 113

Paintings from “The Thing” Art Exhibition 115

ABSTRACT

The purpose of my thesis is to analyze Adorno’s predictions of the “Culture Industry” and discover whether or not his observations in the mid-twentieth century remained prevalent in contemporary society. Adorno witnessed the influences that capitalism imposed on North

American societies and expressed that this blanket nature limited autonomy and freedom of expression in the arts and ultimately, our everyday lives.

I interviewed nine Halifax artists of varying backgrounds, achievements and disciplines to gather their personal experiences with the culture industry. The interviews, coupled with a literature review, shaped my conclusions.

The results showed that the majority of these Halifax artists were impacted by the culture industry, demonstrating that mass social influence is both possible and present; therefore, demonstrating Adorno’s predictions true. However, not all artists expressed that their experience was necessarily negative or stifling, as Adorno argued, thus leaving room for contemplation on his original theories.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my special appreciation and thanks to my supervisor. Dr. Andrew

Biro, you have been a tremendous mentor for me. I would like to thank you for encouraging my research and for allowing me to grow as a critical theorist. Your advice, attentiveness and expertise have played a crucial role in my research experience. I would also like to thank professors, Dr. Rachel Bricker and Dr. Geoffrey Whitehall for offering your academic inspiration and knowledge. In addition to a great teaching staff, I want to recognize the generous administrative staff at Acadia University. My time at Acadia has been both valuable and enjoyable; much of this experience is accredited to the efficiency of this academic institution.

A special thanks goes to the Halifax artists who participated as my research interviewees. Stefanie Smiley, Ingrid Singing Grass, Dillon Garland, El Jones, Alex McLeod,

Mark Little, Rich Aucoin, Janette Rawding and Mike Ryan, your honesty and cooperation compiled the foundation of my research. May you all continue to create from a place of purity and freedom to the best of your abilities. To my father and brother who supported me through difficult times, thank you for continuing to encourage me until the very end. I would also like to thank all of my friends who supported me in writing, and provided incentive to strive towards my goal. Words cannot express how grateful I am to my partner and best friend, Mike Ryan. Thank you for your edits, suggestions, patience and kindness – each playing an integral role in this project.

At the end I would like express appreciation to my late mother, Nancy Herrington who contributed love and guidance in immeasurable ways. You will always be the strongest, most beautiful person I know.

viii

1. Introduction: Interpreting Adorno

To survey the world through the often narrow lenses of many political theories and ideologies can feel limiting. Separating, segregating or compartmentalizing components of society such as economics, religion, culture or ethics does not allow for a holistic approach to thrive. This holistic approach, one that acknowledges the diversities and interconnectedness of all aspects of society, is crucial for transformational action to follow. We must view and understand society as whole rather than as separate parts. Critical theory aims to achieve this

– to consider every person within the sociological structure, therefore, advocating for mass influence and the possibility of change for everyone. Theodor Adorno, a critical theorist from the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, recognized that all of society, regardless of geography, wealth or culture must be factored into his critiques. Mass culture, or the culture industry, would be one of his methods of discussing this society.

Horkheimer and Adorno stated, “ The whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 4). This filter referred to the rigid conformities that the industrialization of culture had manifested. When culture is industrialized, individual cultural products and even people, become commodified. What was once a genuine cultural experience, such as attending a theatrical performance and being uncertain of its outcome, must now adhere to market expectations leaving, “no scope…left for the imagination” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 4). As a result, culture as a whole could no longer exist outside of the logic and justification of commodification. The nature of capitalism and its market-driven goals had overwhelmed the possibility of alternative ways of thinking and behaving within society. Adhering to the culture industry’s economic motivations, particularly under a complacent state of mind, prevented further and free ideas,

products and ultimately cultures to exist. Unlike pre- or early-capitalist eras, it had become difficult or even impossible for cultural producers, such as artists, to express societal contradictions in a truthful way. All that remained available as a cultural expression was hinged on capitalism and the reflection of a manufactured culture. As, “…the power of the culture industry resides in its identification with a manufactured need,” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 9) consumer choices were limited to “cultural” goods, rooted in capitalism.

Although there may have been a greater selection of consumer goods in Adorno’s decades and beyond than in pre- and early-capitalism eras, his argument was that despite the volume of consumer goods, they were all established in the same economic motivations, thus making all goods the same. As everything was influenced by commodification, freedom to produce a genuine cultural item or experience outside of this goal had been stifled by the culture industry.

Adorno used the arts, in multiple genres, to highlight his critiques of mass society and the ways that it functions under a capitalist system. He noted that by the mid-twentieth century, the homogenous nature of a globalized world was reflected in the art that consumers both demanded and expected. Society had been influenced beyond a point where even deviation from this infrastructure seemed possible. In the post-nineteenth century, Adorno witnessed the conformity and uniformity that society adopted and the stifling cultural ramifications that this process generated. People, particularly artists, were less able to create works that were genuinely produced from their point of passion, or, as I will describe, from their “thing.” The thing is what motivates an artist - what makes their creativity unique and personalized. It is ideally a place of autonomous inspiration that enables free and pure expression.

Adorno observed that by the 1940s-1960s, society had restricted this creative ability.

Capitalist consumer demands and cultural expectations had transcended individual subjectivity and were replaced by an objective, commodified and uniform type of art and entertainment. Capitalism had led to the removal of intellectual stimulation from society and therefore, the artistic experience within it. It had surpassed free culture and exchanged autonomous individuality for social totality. This totality “...is ultimately a coercive historical process in which individuality is integrated to the requirements of the totality” (Cook 2008,

191) leaving no one external to capitalism's impacts. Adorno’s theory of the culture industry

“...is not a theory of culture, which would imply that, culturally speaking, the enlightenment must culminate in Hollywood. To the contrary, it is the theory of an industry, of a branch of the interlocking monopolies of late capitalism that makes money out of what used to be culture” (Smith 2013). His argument is more so about:

...culture being ‘administered’ and how administered society becomes facilitated by the ‘culture industry’. In an overly simplistic sense, Adorno’s argument here is more or less about the standardized nature of art in late-capitalism: i.e., art reduced to product. But it is also about the problematic status of the subject in modern society. (Smith, 2013)

Adorno felt as though every aspect of human society, including but not limited to art, nature and even biology, had been affected by the conformities manifested by capitalism, or, the culture industry. In essence, he believed society itself had become an industry – one that could be packaged, advertised and sold. As a result, free, pure and autonomous culture could no longer exist.

Some contemporary artists may not feel the pressures of the culture industry in the ways that Adorno predicted. While he witnessed the “birth” of the industrial process, he additionally forecasted that the tendencies of this observed capitalist society would only

intensify in generations to come. He argued that, “…the power of the culture industry resides in its identification with a manufactured need,” and “…only meaninglessness is acceptable” (Adorno and Horkheimer 1944, 9) in popular culture. Increased cultural industrialization negatively influenced the artist’s thing, leaving their expressive creations stifled. However, it is possible that free expression and an autonomous thing could remain intact, despite social norms and expectations. While Adorno made supported observations on these social impacts from both Nazi Germany in the1930s – 1940s and Hollywood, USA within the same decade and years beyond, it is possible that social outcomes, particularly for the artist, did not result in the ways he predicted.

Adorno believed that the “pursuit of freedom in society is inseparable from the pursuit of enlightenment in culture” (Adorno and Horkheimer 1944 xvi). Yet, he noted that while particular “freedoms” such as the growth in science, technology and economics were being experienced, the accompanying “enlightenment” in fields such as the arts and philosophies were simultaneously muted. Should this theory remain true in contemporary

North American societies, we can conclude two things. Firstly, that it is possible for entire societies to be influenced in such a way that individual behaviors become alike. The longevity of this influence can last for decades. This social influence is one that Adorno argued is often overlooked or unacknowledged. People are typically unaware that this process has occurred, enabling another culture industry achievement as a result of their complacency. Secondly, “In the original drafts [of the Culture Industry], Adorno and

Horkheimer had referred to ‘mass culture’. They replaced the term with “culture industry” because they saw the former term as suggesting a culture that arises spontaneously from the masses” (Witkin 2003, 47). If mass-social influence is possible and sustainable, this suggests

that social change can additionally occur. Although Adorno’s observations were generally negative, it is possible that similar social influences can be experienced but in a perceivably more positive light.

Objective and Argument

The purpose of my thesis is to analyze Adorno’s predictions and discover whether or not his observations in the mid-twentieth century remain prevalent today. I asked nine Halifax artists of varying backgrounds, achievements, education and disciplines a set of questions to reveal their personal experiences with the culture industry. I was most interested in specifically answering, “does contemporary society embody the same characteristics and stifled creative possibilities that were observed in the decades of Adorno’s critical theories regarding the culture industry?” This case study was a means of compiling data and discovering first-hand which, if any, of Adorno’s predictions of the culture industry were experienced by contemporary artists. Each artist was given the same information and questions prior to their semi-structured interview to create consistency and continuity.

Information provided to artists can be found as an appendix. Adorno’s predictions assumed that the culture industry influenced both consumers’ and producers’ market behaviors, particularly in the arts. I felt that going directly to the source, the artists themselves, was the most accurate means of researching this question. Did these artists feel that the industry, in any way, manipulated, stifled, changed or limited their “thing”?

I will flesh out the intricacies of the thing and the way that it can be influenced by the culture industry in the following chapter, but would first like to clarify Adorno’s perspectives on a term that I have created. The “thing,” by my own definition, is a point of free, pure, uninfluenced creativity that the artist uses to express their observations and feelings towards

society. Ideally, this place remains autonomous and unfrozen by any social constraints.

Adorno was not concerned with the authenticity or individuality of the artist (or the artist’s thing, for that matter) but rather the idea that autonomous art cannot be produced by the artist/artist’s thing within a society that demands specific creative characteristics. Under these social conditions, the artist cannot express the contradictions of society in a truthful way; this being the very purpose that art serves as a non-instrumental medium. Adorno was not concerned that the thing itself had been stifled but rather the ways in which the thing could no longer be expressed in an autonomous way. He was not aiming to advocate a

“better future” or “more creativity,” but instead drawing attention to the limitations that society experienced under capitalism and how art, as a reflection of this society, was left with the same constraints. Adorno was not partial to using definitions, nor would he necessarily encourage the reification of my use of the “thing” as a term. However, as a means of demonstrating his arguments, I felt that using the thing as a point of reference, or comparison to observations made in other areas of society, would be helpful. Furthermore, as I chose to interview artists as a means of research, I anticipated that having an established framework which the artist could understand and relate to would help capture their true experience within contemporary society. Horkheimer and Adorno might explain this as,

The unity of style not only of the Christian Middle Ages but of the Renaissance expresses in each case the different structure of social power, and not the obscure experience of the oppressed in which the general was enclosed. The great artists were never those who embodied a wholly flawless and perfect style, but those who used style as a way of hardening themselves against the chaotic expression of suffering, as a negative truth. (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 6)

This passage explains how they observed a shift in the artist’s ability to produce from an autonomous place, or thing. It was not the volume or aesthetic of art which beared concern, it was the “oppressed” society that stifled the ability for truth to be expressed through art.

The elimination of the ability to express social contradiction and truth, or as I explain it, the

“thing,” was what Adorno (and Horkheimer) observed as problematic with the emergence and intensification of the culture industry.

In addition to this particular question of the thing, I asked artists about their experiences with capitalism itself –whether or not audience approval or consumption was their motivating factor. I asked them if their art addressed the tensions in society that Adorno proposed had been lost. I asked who had formal training in their artistic discipline, and whether or not this changed their approach or experiences with their career. Were they free to create? Did money influence their art? What were their thoughts on being recognized as mainstream and did this equate to being labeled a “sell-out”?

Each interview took approximately one hour and was later transcribed. I then coded each transcription looking for consistencies or trends among the answers. Some responses were directly related to the thesis question, whereas other answers offered relevant information in a more subtle or indirect way. For example, I asked each artist about his or her thoughts and experiences on serious art versus low art, on capitalism, on subjectivity and even mass production. While this portion of the interview was not a direct inquiry about their thing, the feedback was still a contribution to the overall thesis question.

As an extension of the theory and interview sections of my thesis research, I opted to use myself as a case study. I too am a Halifax based artist and wanted to experience for myself some of the occurrences of the interviewees. For each artist’s response regarding his or her thing, I produced a painting representative of my interpretation of that individual. I selected a quote or idea that I felt captured the essence of the artist’s thing and used my own artistic skills, which ultimately was my thing, to create nine paintings. These pieces made up

the exhibit, “The Thing” which was showcased in Halifax’s, The Economy Shoe Shop for the months of October and November 2013. Through this experience, I was able to truly identify the artist’s struggles with the culture industry. Was my thing influenced? As art is based on subjectivity, how would I price the pieces? Was my art intellectually challenging and did that matter to me? Although I did not include these personal discoveries as part of my written thesis, it added another layer to my understanding of my project and respect for those who I was working with. I have included prints of each of these paintings in my appendix for interest sake and to offer an example of what an artist’s thing might look like in a contemporary North American society.

I will begin my analysis by introducing the nine artists, in the order that they were interviewed, providing a brief biography that each participant offered. I will follow their introduction with theoretical overview, supported by direct artist quotes to answer the specific thesis question.

Artist Introductions

Stefanie Smiley: “I paint. Mostly landscapes but some abstracts I’ve gotten into. And I sing and play guitar. And I make jewelry!” I asked, “How long have you been an artist?” to which she responded, “Painting, since as long as I can remember. I taught myself to play guitar when I was 12…singing as long as I can remember and jewelry since 2011.” Stefanie has her own jewelry business, enjoys painting and plays open mic nights in Halifax.

Ingrid Singing Grass: “Mostly I do painting. Mostly very colorful abstract. Very free flow.

I’ve done some sculptural performance art. I’ve been doing it for almost 20 years. I guess

I’ve always made things.” Ingrid can be seen at many music festivals, art battles, local galleries and events in Halifax.

Dillon Garland: “I’m a film director and cinematographer. I direct story films; fiction, fantasy, drama and I also shoot them.” Dillon also directs and creates music videos for local

Halifax bands such as the Town Heroes and the Stanfields. His video for the Town Heroes,

“Slag Heaps” was nominated for video of the year at the 2012 Music Nova Scotia awards.

His short film, “Ageless” was shown at the 2013 Center for Arts and Technology Film

Festival where he would go on to win Best Director in his category.

Alex MacLeod: “I am a short story writer. And that is different from being a super-duper, high powered novelist or being an ‘of the earth poet’ – it’s somewhere in between.” Alex was a finalist for the Scotiabank Giller Prize in 2010 and shortlisted in the Frank O’Connor

International Short Story Award in 2011. He currently works as an English professor at Saint

Mary’s University.

El Jones: “I’m a spoken word artist. That’s kind of a huge genre. I started doing slam poetry, which is the competitive kind of end. It’s three-minute poems, which is what people usually think of when they think of spoken word. It’s not totally scripted – if you get up on stage and do something that’s somewhat of a poem, it’s spoken word.” In addition to her career as an artist, El is a part-time professor at Acadia University and is also the recipient of the 2013 Poet Laureate in Halifax.

Rich Aucoin: “I play music and make mixed media visual shows.” Rich is known as a pop- sensation winning multiple music awards such as the Prism Prize for best music video in

Canada in 2013, was long listed for Canada’s Pulitzer Prize in 2012 and is the recipient of multiple Indie awards and contests on a local level. Rich has played concerts all over the world including venues in Europe, the US, Australia and Canada.

Mark Little: “I am a comedian and a writer and an actor. Mostly within…all within the world of comedy.” Mark was the recipient of the 2009’s “Yuk Yuk's Great Canadian Laugh

Off”. He was a member of Halifax based sketch comedy troupe, Picnicface, a star in the film

Roller Town, is the face for Telus phone company for their 2013 ad campaign and currently is an actor for the CBC sitcom, Mr.D.

Janette Rawding: “Currently, I am a tattooer…I guess my whole life, I’ve tried to make art work in some way that will support me a little…or fully. I’ve always done art and always thought that it would become my job in some way, shape or form.” Janette was the designer for the “Best Merch” category in Halifax’s 2010 “Coast” awards. She has participated in a number of local art shows, both solo and collaboratively and currently works in one of the most sought after tattoo parlors in the city.

Mike Ryan: “I am a musician... which I suppose means I write songs, record them, and perform them live in front of groups of people. I also try my hand, literally, at writing prose.”

Mike is the lead singer for the band, The Town Heroes who won best band in Halifax in 2012 in the Coast awards. The band also walked away with silver in songwriting, silver in best band to be blown-away by, silver in band most likely to make it big by and in 2013 won best online presence. In addition, the Town Heroes have played festivals in Germany, England,

Finland and the US. Ryan was also the Nova Scotia Regional winner for the National Radio

Star Song Writing competition in 2011.

Each participant was familiar with the culture industry to some extent. They acknowledged that the market demanded specific artistic considerations such as song-length, film story lines or creative designs that were popular at that specific time. While each artist shared a different experience with their personal creative process, they all experienced

awareness of what work would sell better than others. Whether or not they had thought about the intricacies or impacts on their personal experience as an artist was one thing, but each artist shared Adorno’s observations of the homogenous nature of the culture industry. This was one of the most common similarities throughout the interviews – that the culture industry was undoubtedly present in contemporary society and that in some way, while not always negatively, artists were influenced by this cultural presence. Adorno emphasized that the culture industry not only stifled the artist’s thing but that even the opportunity for the thing to remain free had been abolished. Each of the interview subjects agreed with this argument, although not always sharing the negative tone that Adorno expressed.

Adorno did not offer an alternative to capitalism, nor is this the intention of my thesis.

He did, however, highlight the possibilities of social unity. Perhaps there are ways that unity can encourage autonomy to rise again. The arts offer an interesting and tangible means of analysis in how they act as a mirror image of society – a mimesis. Art is reflective of the environment or state of mind under which creations are manifested. If the contemporary artist continues to produce from a limited expression of their thing, as was found in the mid- twentieth century, it demonstrates that Adorno's predictions were true. Offering awareness to this social restriction might enable a shift to occur, free of coercive or manipulative measures.

Art, “...like the bottle of messages, is a container for truth and hope addressed to imaginary witnesses of an uncertain future, sent in spite of the aggressive indifference of the world, and aesthetics becomes, here at least, the privileged other of critical theory” (Hellings 2012), allowing for social truth to be exposed. If art is “the surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked” (Hellings 2012) we can understand why Adorno might reference it as a means of highlighting the tensions between the way the world is and the way the world could be.

Adorno never makes suggestions or prescriptions about what the world “ought to be.” In fact, he argues that it is impossible to do so under current conditions, partly because of the ways in which the culture industry has shaped our capacity to think freely and imagine positive alternatives. For Adorno, the most that art could do was to represent the world as it ought to be “negatively”: to reveal how the world is not as it ought to be. Any image of a world beyond what is currently known is impossible. Not only are artists denied the opportunity to conceive what ought to be, they cannot even fathom what the world could be, good or bad, beyond the current capitalist society.

Using a collective of Adorno’s works, specifically those focused on the cultural industry, in addition to external scholars with emphasis on the Frankfurt school, I have outlined and explained Adorno’s key concepts, critiques and observations of mass society. I have used a combination of primary and secondary sources to establish these concepts and theories. In succeeding chapters, I discuss Adorno’s explanation of the artist’s thing, specifically its role within the culture industry, his ideas of capitalism, high and low art and subjectivity/objectivity. There is some overlap in concepts and arguments throughout the following four chapters as they are often interlinked and interconnected. While other critical theorists such as Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse were influential thinkers who impacted Adorno’s thought, I have limited my research to Adorno’s perspectives and arguments. I selected Adorno exclusively as he emphasized the importance of the arts as a means of emphasizing social tensions and pitfalls. His examples and observations of the arts and culture were the most suitable for my intended research.

References may be made to the additional critical theorists but my arguments and case studies remain within the realms of Adorno’s critiques.

My “thing” was stimulated by the philosophies of the Frankfurt school, Adorno in particular. He offers an insightful argument on society and culture, one that I too believe is an effective means for observing society from a holistic perspective. Unless we acknowledge society in its entirety, change cannot occur. It appears, with this idea accepted, that stifling the thing inside of us will only prevent society from breaking free of the very limits that we have created.

2: The Culture Industry: Exploring the “Thing”

In this thesis, I have emphasized the place inside of people, artists specifically, that is the engine for creative expression. This place, I refer to as the “thing,” is unique and subjective to the individual and ideally, unrestricted in its abilities to “come out” of a person. It is inevitable that we will be influenced by the society we live in. Our surroundings and experiences can only be a reflection of our personal thoughts and subjective interpretations of them. For this reason, we will accept that the idea or understanding of the thing as a concept will be slightly different for everyone. Adorno said, “To the consciousness of the phenomenal appearance of the conceptual totality there remains nothing left but to break through the appearance of total identity: in keeping with its own measure,” (Adorno 1973, 7) explaining that should we accept concepts as a totality truth, there is no opportunity to think beyond these terms. It is complying with a consciousness at face-value. Much like my description of a good book, a flock of birds seen overhead or even a recount of a night in

Vegas would be slightly different than anyone else’s, so would my description of the thing.

We might also say that we can never offer a name or concept to fully capture the essence of a person. Our feelings towards others are personal and therefore, differ between one another.

Furthermore, because we are limited to words and language as a means of communicating our ideas, we can never achieve total, mutual understanding of anything. For example, the use of the colour red as an expression of anger is a concept taught through language. With this subjective perspective established, we will agree on the basic understanding that the thing is a point of artistic expression within us. The thing acts as the vehicle to potentially voice the artist’s discontents with society – the tensions between the way things are and the way they could, or ought to be if they were free to imagine such things.

Adorno argued that it’s not necessarily the thing itself that is compromised but rather its ability to be expressed. He believed that real freedom of expression should not be bound by the constraints of the world “as it is” versus the world “as it could be” but rather a freedom that permits the artist to create independent of social limitations. He or she can create whatever they like because the liberty to imagine something beyond their present society is available to them. This point of tension is what motivates the artist to indulge in, and fuel, their thing. Adorno’s critique is that a capitalist society, such as that in the mid- twentieth century, immobilized the ability of this tension to be expressed. Ingrid Singing

Grass confirms Adorno’s arguments saying, “We’re all affected by what’s going on around us in a different way. Even if it is a reactionary way. If I feel like something is going on around me and I react opposingly, I’m still being influenced. I think that happens more often, even though I rebel against it philosophically.” The homogeneous nature of society did not exist in both early and pre-capitalist decades; however, contemporary society finds this to be the norm. Being the same is all that we know, see and experience. Ingrid Singing Grass continues, “I was raised to believe ‘success looks like this, and you must do this.’ It’s really hard to get away from the shame and guilt if you’re not living up to what success is

‘supposed’ to be or feeling like I have to justify everything I put into my art,” emphasizing that not only are expectations placed upon the artist’s creation, but rebelling against this leaves them “unsuccessful” in a capitalist society. Furthermore, this rebellion remains a reaction to the industry – one of dislike, but a reaction nonetheless, and therefore substantiating that participation is inescapable.

Deviation: Selling out or Setting Trends, it’s all Boring in the End

The artist, as a member of the capitalist society, is not free from social limitations placed on them. Despite the artist’s awareness of these limitations, or their desire to exclude his or herself from them, they cannot escape their inevitable participation. Mark Little explains,

“The majority of people think of the world in a commodified way. The people that don’t are sort of those rebel exceptions. And they have to make a conscious decision to do that.

Because of that awareness of deviation, you’re still part of it, right?” emphasizing that the very awareness of deviation makes one as equally involved in a capitalist society as those who remain unaware. After all, “Successful artists, including the most talented, belong to the culture industry long before it ever agrees to display their wares” (Cook 2008, 172). Little recognizes this reality and the pre-determined path before him. Mike Ryan adds to this discussion as he points out, “It definitely has to have some influence on it... since we all are, myself included, a product of the culture industry ... we’re all a product of our influences…” and El Jones acknowledges, “We’re all complicit within the confines of our society – no one works outside of that…you can’t say things outside of that,” thus highlighting that many

Halifax artists admit to having the industry impact their thing in some way. Adorno did not critique the artist for adhering to these influences – he too recognized the unavoidable nature of society and therefore, the culture industry. Adorno, additionally reminded society that the ability to produce from a place of freedom was as important as the place itself. Based on the answers above, I would conclude that the industry has indeed stifled this ability. Although,

“…people are not directly told or ordered to behave in a certain way,” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 16) artists know what their consumers expect. So while they might have the apparent ‘choice’ to cater to these demands, the artist is aware of the consequences should they attempt an alternative approach.

When the industrialization of culture grew, artists felt pressured to succumb to industry standards. The concern to make something beautiful was subordinated by commodification. Because of this consumer expectation, the thing could not be expressed in a way the artist desired. Rather, the social environment led artists to place less emphasis on their true expressive nature and more on producing a good that would earn money.

Artists don’t live external from everyone else in society; therefore, they have the task of producing a representation of a world they are part of. Mike Ryan explains his experience with this idea saying, “…Because it’s an artist’s responsibility to make sense of our emotions.

Our art, our creation, should reflect what it is that we, as humans, experience emotionally day to day. We need to understand those feelings and give them back to the world in relatable examples.” If we are surrounded by a society of ‘sameness’ it is impossible for the artist to create externally or free from social influence. Ryan’s emotions and understandings of them are limited by predictability and expectations. Similarly, Alex MacLeod adds, “You always commit to present-ism…here we are in this unique phase that your Grandparents didn’t know anything about. There’s a lot of really horrible, crappy pop-culture…” solidifying that the artist has no choice but to be influenced by his or her present surroundings.

The artist’s thing acts as an expression of social contradictions and tensions – the point found between the actual and the possibility of something else motivates them. This in turn creates a similar contradiction between the thing itself and society. As expression is reliant upon societal experiences and understandings, it is only from this perspective that an artist can create. Adorno explains, “No artist is able to overcome, through his own individual resources; the contradiction of enchained art within an enchained society. The most which he can hope to accomplish is the contradiction of such a society through emancipated art, and

even in this attempt he might well be the victim of despair” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944,

105). Adorno believed the artist wanted to express the recognition of the unresolved. The unresolved issue of living in a world that had become uniform and boring. The issues that artists were desperate to declare and no longer could.

Capitalism of the early 20th century didn’t demand the same level of conformity.

Industrialization (and standardization, commodification, etc.) was mostly limited to the work processes (factories) but hadn’t yet reached culture and other spheres. By the mid-twentieth century, the world had become reliant upon the capitalist structure. Adorno observed at this time that, “Mass culture [was] not a means of self-expression, of the self-development of the subject, but its antithesis it appeals to the passive, regressive and self-indulgent in people”

(Cook 2008, 164) as he recognized the blanket nature that capitalism spread over individualism. All capitalist societies appeared alike. And if we accept that art does in fact reflect life, it is no wonder that Adorno saw parallels between society and artistic representation. He claimed, “movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art” and, “the man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufactures offer…the escape from everyday drudgery which the whole culture industry promises,” (Horkheimer and Adorno

1944, 142) addressing how mass production was no longer kept a secret. The culture industry was entrenched in generating a manufactured need for consumption. The same, repetitive, expected style of art had become mass-produced, a direct reflection of a consumer based, capitalist based society.

In the mid-twentieth century, consumers began demanding a particular type of art: a style that could act as a “break” from the apparent demands of a fast-paced, demanding world.

People wanted to attend a film or watch a television show that did not require further effort

of intellectual stimulation. Audiences were consuming a particular style of art and therefore, more of this art was manufactured. Considering the function of the capitalist market under which North America operated in the mid-twentieth century and still does today, the purpose of supply and demand was being fulfilled. That is, the greater the demand for a particular style of art, the greater was the supply. With mass production generating the same, predictable thing over and over, consumers were left with no choice but to continue with their purchasing demands. In reaction, Adorno notes, “the culture industry’s style kills style”

(Held 1980, 94) meaning that the uniqueness of art or “high art,” which will be discussed in greater detail later on, had been lost.

By the mid-twentieth century, “pleasure always mean[t] not to think about anything”

(Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 13). Adorno saw consumers living happily in complacency with the art and life that they had been provided. People wanted to be “entertained” by an art form that did not require much thought or challenge. They were happy to stare at a TV screen and know exactly what would appear. Entertainment had become predictable and boring – and audiences appreciated this. Consumers felt comforted that what they saw on the big screen was simply a reenactment of the life that they lived exterior to the walls of the movie theatre. They saw that their personal lives could somehow be the same as the “fantasy” that was being manufactured for entertainment value. Yet, the attainability of such a reality remained just out of reach. Hollywood stars appeared to inhabit a different universe, just out of reach to the common consumer. Horkheimer and Adorno explain, “The girls in the audience not only feel that they could be on the screen, but realize the great gulf separating them from it.” They continue, “…now the lucky actors on the screen are copies of the same category as every member of the public, but such equality demonstrates the insurmountable

separation of the human elements. The perfect similarity of the absolute difference”

(Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 13-14). The paradox found in this characteristic of the culture industry is that of the unattainable. Art consumers were witnessing a mirror image of their lives on screen. A representation of the “real” world was the same as what was depicted in films, television, concerts, etc. This led viewers to believe that they too were of “movie star” caliber, so to speak. They believed that the stories found at the movies were not so different than the stories they could make of their own lives.

This reaction and interpretation was not entirely inaccurate. The mundane, predictable lives of North Americans were indeed reflected at the movies and in concert halls. Culture had become a mere idea as opposed to the intellectual experience that it once was. The apparent unattainable dream of “being famous” or achieving celebrity status seemed more attainable than ever before. Yet, the manufacturing of art did not necessarily open up new opportunities for starry-eyed consumers. People factored chance into success. The average citizen was indecipherable from the stars they watched on the big screen and therefore, many adopted an aloof approach to life. “Chance and planning become one and the same thing…chance itself is planned,” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 14) said Horkheimer and

Adorno, emphasizing that society did not experience the same lifestyle as was once required for economic success. The culture industry had become increasingly stronger with the ongoing social support of a capitalist society. Adorno observed, “Ironically, man as a member of a species has been made a reality by the culture industry” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 14) confirming that man had fueled the industry so much; he too was experiencing the ramifications. Society had manufactured a need and desire for sameness.

After being offered sameness indefinitely, people could only continue to ask for it, thus

strengthening the very industry that had initially persuaded them into this desire. The industry made participation attainable, “now any person signifies only those attributes by which he can replace everybody else; he is interchangeable, a copy” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 14) convincing everyone that they have just as good of a chance, economically and otherwise, of succeeding in their society – there was nothing produced to encourage them to believe any differently.

Dillon Garland expressed his thoughts on the expectedness of the culture industry in

North America noting,

There’s a business side of the industry that’s going on that actually scares the shit out of me. Nobody is taking a risk anymore. It’s all remakes, reboots or sequels. The films can’t be original anymore because nobody has faith in ‘heart’. Star Wars will never happen again because no one has faith in these types of filmmakers and what they want to do. They’d rather see them do a remake of say, Robocop.

In Dialectics of Enlightenment, Horkheimer and Adorno observed similar practices and agreed that, “The movie-makers distrust any manuscript which is not reassuringly backed by a bestseller,” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 8) reiterating theories of killing style.

When I asked selected Halifax artists about their experience with “style killing” I received many answers that confirmed this was indeed the outcome that the culture industry created. Smiley admitted, “If people want to see more beach glass in my jewelry, then I’ll put more in…at first I just starting making things that I like, thinking that other people would too. Then I started making things that I didn’t necessarily like assuming someone would like it. And that proved to work!” suggesting that catering to the industry and the desires of consumers surpassed the creative satisfaction of the artist. Mark Little had a similar outlook on his audience explaining,

I think there are pros and cons to it. I think when I was doing early Yuk Yuks work I was reducing myself to a certain archetype…when people understand you or where

you’re coming from, they’ll open up to you more easily. And I think an easy way to do that is through archetypes… so now people aren’t confused or wondering where you’re coming from. They’re like, ‘oh he’s a nerd’ and I think I succumb to this. I had fun with it but it didn’t fully express who I was.

Little’s feedback connects to Horkheimer and Adorno’s arguments about generic standardization and the ways in which products must be “…as accessible for public enjoyment as a park” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 22) and fit into unvarying categories to be successfully commodified and culturally comprehensible.

As a comedian, Mark Little has learned to read his audience and provide them with the anticipated archetypical characters that they expect. He also points out that he too enjoys these predictable characters or elements of the culture industry saying,

A lot of us want to seem very Avant Garde in what we do but truthfully, the stuff we like falls into some of those same traps we’re claiming to be against. I love Star Wars. I love it specifically because it is archetypes. Because every time Han Solo opens his mouth you know he’s going to say something roguish. I love that shit! Maybe it’s not the archetype but the cliché of the archetype. And clichés are totally market driven. When you’re writing a cliché it’s specifically because you know it has worked in the past.

This is thought provoking as it shows both sides of one contemporary artist’s personality as a producer and a consumer. While Little hopes to offer his audience something new or unique, he also relies on the dependency of what has worked in the past and uses this successful model as a basis of creativity. From the perspective of a consumer, or audience member, he also enjoys the predictability of the industry, thus highlighting the struggles experienced from all angles. This example demonstrates the firm grip of the culture industry, particularly for artists. Artists are often viewed as social deviants, or those who are expected to be different. However, they too enjoy the predictable nature of arts and entertainment just like any other consumer. The industry does not discriminate.

This cycle of supply and demand is difficult to dissect in terms of which came first. It

is a “chicken and egg” example of consumer demands spawning the manufacturing of a uniform product and also, product generating consumer demand. This process continued until uniformity was the only available product choice. Once this uniform product was the sole choice offered to consumers, it was consequently what they felt they wanted. Whether people wanted alternative choices or not, these alternatives were hidden amongst the myriad of manufactured, mainstream products. Eventually, as was mentioned by Smiley and Little, even products that attempted to deviate from this social norm found themselves within the same category of mass production. Horkheimer and Adorno explain, “Whenever Orson

Welles offends against the tricks of the trade, he is forgiven because his departures from the norm are regarded as calculated mutations which serve all the more strongly to confirm the validity of the system” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 5). The culture industry has already accounted for the deviants. This anticipation is but another predictable characterization, consistently driving the capitalist machine.

Both Garland and Little use Star Wars as a point of reference – a well-known film that, in its initial production in 1977, was thought to be cutting edge in the industry. We can conclude that the responses given by these Halifax artists validate that what was once considered “edgy” or “risky” has now become mainstream and well known. This, once again, shows that even those attempting to function externally of the industry will eventually find themselves embedded within it. Although George Lucas, director of Star Wars might be considered a deviant of the industry in the early days of Star Wars, his originality was mimicked and remade in combination with a complete branding of his film. Star Wars has become a multi-billion dollar industry. According to Box Office Mojo, “…the six Star Wars movies have earned a total of $4.5 billion in ticket sales worldwide, including $2 billion in

the U.S.” Mojo continues, “the films have generated an additional $20 billion in merchandise sales, which helped land George Lucas in the 97th spot on our recent Forbes 400 list with a net worth of $3.25 billion” (Pomerantz 2010) proving the monetary value that Star Wars has achieved. It is interesting that the film(s) that has gained such financial success is the film referenced most frequently by the very artists discussing the possible flaws in the industrialization of culture.

There will always be members of society that attempt to deviate from the norm; those that question the conformities of capitalism and the culture industry. Select people will remain conscious of artistic merit. However, should the artist want to survive (he or she does), they must eventually participate in the dominant structure. Horkheimer and Adorno reminded this artist, “anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 7) pointing out that if the artist does not produce what people will buy (that which is produced in the culture industry) he or she will simply not survive. Adorno explained further, “once this particular brand of deviation from the norm has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism…the more immeasurable the gap between chorus and leaders, the more certainly there is room at the top for everyone who demonstrates his superiority by well-planned originality” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 7). This originality risks two possible outcomes, both of which perpetuate the culture industry.

Firstly, the artist will be discredited or accused of “incompetence” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 7). He or she will fall short of economic stability and remain either an unknown artist, or at the very least, a poor one. If the artist is unwilling to take advantage of the creative industry by providing a predictable or demanded good, he or she will struggle

indefinitely. Horkheimer and Adorno said, “not to conform means to be rendered powerless, economically and therefore spiritually” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 7). A good example of this incident comes from American rock-duo, the Black Keys. In 2011, the Black Keys participated in an in-studio interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)’s,

Jian Ghomeshi. Ghomeshi questioned the Black Keys on their success in the music industry, in particular, on accusations made about the band “selling out.” The band, while touring, writing, recording and playing for ten years prior to these accusations was still scrutinized for agreeing to allow their music to be played in a British commercial for mayonnaise. Band members, Dan Auerbach and Patrick Carney explained that for many years they had lived frugally, as many artists are known to do. They were offered 200,000 Euro in exchange for their music to be showcased in an advertisement for mayonnaise. Initially, the band turned down the offer, saying, “Oh man, we can’t sell out, what will people think?” It was

Auerbach’s mother who pointed out they would be crazy to turn down such an opportunity and that their bank accounts were suffering from their stubbornness in avoiding “selling out,” or arguably, joining the culture industry. They originally felt that they were not “about that,” yet, acknowledged that it was the logical and perhaps only decision made available. Carney remarks, “Everybody gets into it somewhere” in reference to the financial opportunities of capitalism. He added, “I would never call anyone a sell-out for making money to make art, which is exactly what we did. Where else are they [society] going to hear it?” (CBC). The

Black Keys’s response is one that many artists are likely to offer: what else are they to do?

Had they not accepted the money, Adorno might say they would be viewed as “incompetent” as they wouldn't have been able to survive and keep making music without an income.

Mike Ryan has similar feedback on the notion of selling out offering,

People usually associate selling out with money. If an artist does anything for money, people see that as selling out. Whether it be putting their music in commercials or getting their song on radio. People forget that artists have to survive. We need food in our bodies and clothes on our skin just like everyone else…in fact, the song that got placed in the newest episode of True Blood was one they wrote 5 years ago, when they were so poor they couldn’t afford the holes in doughnuts.

These remarks shed light on society’s expectation of the artist and the pressure that is placed on them because of it. On the one hand, people identify with the “archetype” as Little would describe it; the image of what an artist should do, look like, produce, etc. and maintain these expectations of them. On the other hand, the artist, as a member of a capitalist society is faced with the ongoing struggle of upholding this image and surviving in a money-driven economy. This creates a dilemma. Adorno argued that not conforming equated to powerlessness. Yet, to conform to social expectations means that artists must also endure the image of “the starving artist.” El Jones explains,

Part of the reason that people love artists and invest in artists is that you’re poor. Artists don’t make a lot of money but you have a status that incommensurate with your income, you know. For the most part in society, it’s doctors, lawyers, bankers…those are the people we admire – they have a high salary and a ton of credentials. But artists don’t have any credentials. They have skill and talent and we admire that. The artist, in some sense, doesn’t have a social class…

This adds but another layer to the artist’s social struggle. They live in a world where consumers place particular expectations upon them. These fulfilled expectations equate to a chance at a paycheck, which in turn, allows an artist to survive in a capitalist economy; an economy that demands we all behave similarly and function under a melting pot approach to sustaining a life. The paradox, however, is that the artist is additionally expected to maintain an image that is appealing to the very populace who is dangling this opportunity in front of them – the consumer. This image is not financial stability. How can one function in a society that demands opposing images and behaviors?

The second outcome, and one that the Black Keys unknowingly touch upon in their interview, is that even those who deviate from social norms will inevitably lose their

“pioneer trend setter” status; everyone will catch up eventually. Those who adopt the role of

“going against the grain” of social norms are often viewed as a leader or rebellious, even.

This becomes exciting and attractive to those who now notice that their lives have become boring and monotonous. These people begin to crave something new and exciting and are drawn to the trendsetter; they want to be different, too. Gradually more and more people become “different” and the market notices. Mass producers observe a shift in consumer preference and begin to manufacture goods to reflect the societal transition. This process is recycled over and over, preventing any real escape from the culture industry.

With the continual emergence of new trends, artists often feel obliged to change accordingly in the manner that consumers, their audience, expects. Rich Aucoin sums it up saying,

Every artist has a period and they have to move on. Like Dylan … and moving from acoustic to electric. That was such a huge move…now we’re going to hear folk music electrified. When he turned his back on what people wanted … and I think retrospectively people are glad that he did. Otherwise, there might just be some really repetitive songs, or people might think he lost his steam. Or various times in Picasso’s career, where people could really recognize it to other pieces without jagged faces. You gotta’ move on.

Adapting and changing is yet another expectation presented by the culture industry. The trend itself may not be predictable but the cycle of change is certainly so.

In defense of their decision, the Black Keys state, “Would you rather be surrounded by Nickelback and Fergie? No … I’d rather it be our music” (CBC). This statement emphasizes that while artists may believe they are separate from or external to the culture industry, bands like the Black Keys are no different than any other when participating in

mass production. Capitalism does not discriminate against or advocate for talent, it simply aims to make money and maintain market trends. This phenomenon is often found in the fashion (culture) industry. As trends become old and outdated, consumers replace articles of what was once fashionably “in style” with new, cutting edge choices. These choices were not always cutting edge but as more and more people are drawn towards particular consumer items, a simultaneous increase in production will occur. As production increases, so does exposure, advertising, availability, and the manufactured need to own that product is only continued. All of those who “wanted something new” now find themselves looking once again, just like everyone else.

What was once considered cutting edge will gradually become the norm. Mark Little supports Adorno’s arguments recounting,

The first girl I knew who wore skinny jeans…my brain just couldn’t handle it because everybody wore jeans that were really wide and there was this chemistry problem and I was just like, ugh, you look like a deer! They were just too tight, you just look like a deer…and then two years later, people started getting on board with that. But it’s not as though she was like, ‘come on…nobody dress like me’. She wanted people to look at her and say oh, that’s a really original and cool way to dress. That’s a really cool way to dress, therefore, I want to dress like that and slowly that gets passed down. If you really wanted to dress like no one else, you could pull that off. Just wear all hemp. Nobody is ever jumping on hemp.

This is an interesting (and comical) point as it suggests even the deviants of society want to be accepted just the same. They too want to “fit in” and part of fitting into the culture industry is, at times, being a trendsetter. It offers consumers something new and exciting.

That is, until everyone catches on to what is trendy and the cycle continues. While the feedback from Rich Aucoin was meant to reflect originality, his statement, “And while I think it’s good to have an identity, it’s also good to have a very diverse mix of songs, or whatever your things that you’re making is. Even if it’s not great, at least I can say ‘well at

least you haven’t heard this’” supports the argument that a consciousness is present in the decision to “go against the grain” – a decision that most artists know will lead them to popularity and consumer approval.

In film, Horkheimer and Adorno articulated that devious social actors are represented through the role of the villain. The person who pushes back against capitalism is cast as,

“…an outsider…[he] becomes an original, the object of maliciously indulgent humor; but usually he is the villain, and is identified as such at first appearance, long before the actions really gets going…” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 16). As art reflects life, it is not surprising that the man who disallows conformity is considered the social villain. He becomes the outcast and the mistrusted. This social perception and ultimately, scrutiny, is only more encouraging for these so-called villains to join the masses and gain a sense of belonging. This cycle only contributes to the growth and strength of capitalism, eventually making it even more difficult for the villain to be seen as just another “free” individual in his society. In the end, the villain and the deviant trendsetter are one in the same.

Predictability: Art Reflects Life

The process of deviation and eventual return to the social norm is often showcased in contemporary television shows. The Walking Dead, which premiered in October 2010, is an

American horror television drama series developed by Frank Darabont. It is based on the graphic novel series of the same name. The transition from print to film is common in the culture industry, once again demonstrating how capitalizing on an artistic creation is the ultimate goal of the economic structure. Because the graphic novels were successful, producers saw a reliable prospect to extend their financial opportunities by producing more

of the same good – this time in television form. Since its debut, “…The Walking Dead has been a ratings champ for AMC [television network], breaking cable ratings records. The

Season 3 premiere broke ratings records with 10.9 million viewers ... only to have the midseason premiere break that record months later with 12.3 million viewers” (Huffpost TV

2013). The show brings to life Adorno’s theory of social deviation. The show’s premise begins with a scene showing dozens of dead bodies. A perceived global virus has infected mass populations. Those affected transform into a zombie state; a “zombie apocalypse” is the outcome. In season one, the surviving characters are portrayed as “themselves,” insofar as they maintained a sense of identity and belonging despite living in an apocalyptic environment. In the beginning, people continue to work together, they rebuild their communities the best they can and they are both considerate and tolerant of one another’s needs. The characters are afraid of the zombies. They comfort their fellow neighbors throughout a frightening and disorientating experience. As time (episodes) goes on, the characters find themselves facing an increasing number of moral dilemmas. They have gradually become desensitized to the brutality of killing zombies (an imperative act to ensure survival); so much so, they begin to kill each other. The viewer watches their once sweet and compassionate favorite characters fall victim to “new” social norms. The innocent young farm girl is now staring through the scope of a semi-automatic, pointed at the ringleader of another (human) pack of survivors. We wonder, what happened to these people? Although many characters did not necessarily want to participate in certain survival acts, it came down to that very choice. Once this choice was required of them on multiple occasions, the ethical sensitivity behind making it, decreased. Eventually, there was no choice to make at all. That was simply the “way it was.” Some characters even begin to enjoy this lifestyle. They desire

it, even. This is also the process experienced in the culture industry. People both accepted and tolerated the way society had become in the mid-twentieth century; the “just the way it is” attitude was as widely spread as consumer goods themselves. People felt as though they had no choice but to participate in the society offered to them, and therefore adopted the “if you can’t beat them, join them” mentality. This eventually led to acceptance while people stopped questioning the function of capitalism. Gradually, this attitude became the social norm and people felt they wanted this way of life. This is explained as, “…what is new is that irreconcilable elements of culture, art and distraction, are subordinated to one end and subsumed after one false formula: the culture industry” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 9).

Even if a deviation from the capitalist structure occurs, or in the case of the Walking Dead, a societal shift, people will eventually conform or surrender to the norms.

Adorno proposed that even if the artist recognized the dilemma in creating for mass society, there is no escaping it. However, that does not mean that the recognition itself is irrelevant. The recognition acts as the point of expression. The pursuit, in this instance, acts as the deviation. The thing is brought to life through this – often making artists feel that they have no choice but to try. The pursuit, the chase, is what keeps them going; keeps them motivated and desperate to unleash the inner voice.

It is the desire for this social identity that keeps the artist’s thing thriving. Without the tensions found between trying to escape the influences of capitalism and the cyclical tendencies of the culture industry, the thing might not need to come out. Society would look

“good enough,” for the thing to essentially vanish. It is the recognition that there is always the possibility of something different. This might be one of the few “positive” characteristics of Adorno’s critique. In this way, there is always a place for hopefulness. Although

opportunities for the thing to thrive had been decreased, Adorno believed, “sociology and critique are inseparable: to analyze a work of art, or a particular cultural artifact, is to analyze and assess the way it is interpreted,” (Jarvis 1988, 77) suggesting that an interpretation, that included everyone in a society, could be achieved.

The (un)Freedom of Leisure Time

What is it about the culture industry that stifles society’s imagination? Why do people accept, let alone desire, a so-called entertainment that is nothing but mundane and predictable?

Adorno would say this is but another symptom of capitalism. The capitalist structure in

North America is designed to cater to the average citizen. This identity often required a particular income and image, leaving people working in demanding jobs that too are repetitive and unchallenging. Ingrid Singing Grass experienced this feeling of sameness even within an art class as she recounts, “It bothered me that there was no painting class that was sort of open and free. It was all technique” demonstrating how a rigid structure had even been applied to a presumably “open and free” environment. What is seen and experienced at work is then translated into society, which is then further reflected in art. The cyclical effect appeared then, and continues in contemporary society, to have no obvious beginning or end.

When leisure time is sought, it only mimics what is found at the workplace, thus creating a mindless, boring continuity. Adorno said, “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 cope with it again” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 9) demonstrating how society is not only stuck in this cycle, but has created it, too. Society wanted to be mindless rather than pensive, predictable rather than stimulating, easy rather

than challenging. Because, “Any logical connection calling for mental effort is painstakingly avoided” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 8), the culture industry has the easy job of reproducing the same consumer goods over and over.

If our leisure time is simply a replica of our work time, we are bound to experience boredom. When I asked Janette Rawding to explain her thing, she replied,

It’s kind of a weird feeling, honestly. I’m not much of a reader but I can imagine that’s what it would be like for a person that could pick up a book and just become completely engulfed in their book and just lose themselves in their imagination. That person could be there for hours and hours and hours and just be off in their own world… I could do a piece of art or a painting and 3 hours would go by … and I would barely notice the 3 hours.

Later in her interview, Rawding also told me, “I think about my job 24 hours a day…I don’t know; I can’t put it out of my mind…even when I’m off.” Although Rawding may not think of her career or her leisure time in terms of “boredom” or each experience as being the same, her answers indicate such conclusions. This mentality supports Adorno’s predications that,

“Boredom is the reflection of objective dullness” (Adorno 2001, 192). If people think about work in the ways that Rawding does, there is no divide between the ways that we spend our time. It is simply a prolongation of work, as Adorno suggested.

Critical theorists acknowledge society’s defensiveness of their apparent “free time.”

People readily offer an explanation of why it is they enjoy their leisure time. They want a break from the stressfulness of the workplace, from the monotony and expectation that is required of them. However, Held’s interpretation of Adorno points out that not only does our free time now resemble our work time, but that both areas are becoming equally unproductive and unstimulating. He explains, “The reason why people can actually do so little with their free time is that the truncation of their imagination deprives them of the faculty which made the state of freedom pleasurable in the first place” (Held 1980, 193).

Contemporary society no longer requires imagination, or the opportunity to exercise such things. Held goes on to say, “Even the most superfluous and senseless activity undertaken in people’s free time is integrated in society” (Held 1980, 193) proposing that every element of our lives is rooted in the culture industry. Furthermore, “…free time is tending towards its own opposite, and is becoming a parody of itself. Thus unfreedom is gradually annexing

‘free time’ and the majority of unfree people are as unaware of this process as they are of unfreedom itself” (Held 1980, 188) clarifying how the division between time spent at work and at play has become indistinct.

Adorno offers two examples to elaborate on his philosophies of leisure time and ways that this too had become a commodified good. The first example he used is that of organized sport, an activity that many North Americans consider leisure activity. He explained that, while people might believe they are participating in a freethinking activity, even sport had been integrated into the capitalist structure. Take baseball, for instance. Players typically register for a team, often under specific age, gender or geography restrictions. Team members are then told when to practice, where to practice, how to play, who to play against, what uniform to wear, and so on. Team members purchase gear, usually paying more for

“better equipment” as a means of maximizing their chances of winning the baseball game.

This encourages other team members or competitors to do the same, therefore increasing their competitive advantage. Once this entire structure has been orchestrated it is time to sell tickets to games. Minor leagues are one thing, professional sports quite another (although equally guilty of meeting the characteristics of participating in the culture industry). After all of the money has been spent on preparing for a game, the game itself is but a further extension of capitalism at work. Tickets are sold, often at very expensive rates to view a

professional level sporting event. Merchandise, food, prizes, photos and souvenirs are all sold at games in addition to the original entrance fee; all so that individuals can enjoy their

“leisure time.” Adorno might ask where the freedom is found in that. He believed in mid- twentieth century societies, “…people are unaware of how utterly unfree they are, even where they feel most at liberty, because the rule of such freedom has been abstracted from them” (Adorno 2001, 191). Consciousness of freedom had been overwhelmed by the very activities that were once intended to incite it.

He used camping as another example to emphasize this point. What was once an activity popular amongst the youth population as a protest “…against the tedium and convention of bourgeois life” (Adorno 2001, 190) had become nothing more than a commodified activity in mid-twentieth century society. Prior to the 1940s-60s, people felt the urge to, “…get out, in both senses of the phrase… [but] after the youth movement had died out this need was harnessed and institutionalized by the camping industry” (Adorno

2001, 190). This example speaks to the irony of the culture industry: at one time, camping was a means of protest against conformity, yet, in contemporary society, camping is simply another opportunity to maximize on economic markets. Rich Aucoin relates this to his musical career stating, “The industry is always integrating the new,” and “…there’s so much instability” explaining why camping, or music in this instance, cannot remain untouched. If we consider the amount of goods available that are “intended to make our camping experience more enjoyable,” we can more easily understand Adorno’s opinion. While he argued that the point of camping is to be out under the stars, free of the conformities of everyday life, to escape the expectations of the culture industry, camping is now quite the opposite. He said, “It is widely known but no less true therefore that specific leisure

activities like tourism and camping revolve around and are organized for the sake of profit”

(Adorno 2001, 188). Consumers have been led to believe that they need several comforts and gadgets to make their camping experience more enjoyable. A manufactured need for consumer products has even found its way into an activity that was intended to highlight the problems with manufactured need, thus reiterating Adorno’s statement that, “Free time is shackled to its opposite” (Adorno 2001, 187).

He further explained that the same expectations that were found in the work place had also leeched into leisure time. That is, that expectation existed at all. So long as leisure time included an expected outcome or experience, it could not truly be free time. If art and culture has a purpose (to make money) then the ambition is outside of the art itself. Art would be purer or freer if it were able to simply “be art” with no ulterior agenda.

In lieu of expectations, I asked Stefanie Smiley if her thing was stifled by social anticipations. She responded, “a lot of time I feel intimidated by other humans” revealing the uncomfortable nature of creating with an audience in mind. Yet, she continued by telling me a story on painting two separate pieces, “The first I acted like it was a project that I had to get a good grade on. And it turned out amazing. The other I just started painting and I didn’t like it as much. I cared more about the other one and I think that’s why it was better.” This could be interpreted as a matter of measuring effort but also demonstrates the possible influence of having others view your creativity. In this instance, the pressure of having her work evaluated or observed by others encouraged Smiley, to be what she felt, a better artist.

She cared more about it than a piece of art that was simply for her, at her own demise. While this response was not mentioned by other artists, I would question if having a pre-determined audience in mind could actually aid artists in tapping into their best work. While arguably

not freer, and therefore not as valuable in Adorno’s terms, the artist in this instance, produced a better work as a result of audience judgments and hypothetical expectations.

In contrast to Smiley, Adorno used sun tanning as an example to emphasize his negative opinion on expectations. I have offered you his complete paragraph as it paints a picture so precisely, the understanding will be much greater when personal experience is applied. Adorno believed mid-twentieth century society had a “vacuous” or as “Hegel would have said, abstract” (Adorno 2001, 191) perception of free time:

An archetypical instance is the behavior of those who grill themselves brown in the sun merely for the sake of a sun-tan, although dozing in the blazing sunshine is not at all enjoyable, might very possibly be physically unpleasant, and certainly impoverishes the mind. In the sun-tan, which can be quite fetching, the fetish character of the commodity lays claim to actual people; they themselves become fetishes. The idea that a girl is more erotically attractive because of her brown skin is probably only another rationalization. The sun-tan is an end in itself, or more importance than the boy-friend it was perhaps supposed to entice. If employees return from holidays without having acquired mandatory skin tone, they can be quite sure their colleagues will ask them the pointed question, ‘Haven’t you been on holiday then?’ The fetishism which thrives in free time, is subject to further social controls. (Adorno 2001, 191)

The culture industry had become so entrenched in societal behaviors, even people had become commodifiable. Human beings were fetishes; society had manufactured a need for the manufactured. Manufactured desires had surmounted free time. People could no longer go on vacation and experience a scrutiny-free return should they not possess with the ever- coveted sun-tan. Adorno addressed that not only is this experience “unleisurely” but that the expected human reaction is yet another layer of social control that had occurred in North

America. The anticipated sun-tan is the first element to be considered, followed by the expected social reaction should there be no sun-tan, and finally, the point that people have become so generic, even human behaviors had been affected by the culture industry.

Personal thoughts and feelings had become part of the homogenous, melting pot of

personalities. As Adorno pointed out with a sun-tan, even sexual attraction had a price. The culture industry could profit from and further perpetuate sexual wants and preferences just like any other commodity good. The sun-tan was but a starting point for the lengths that the beauty aspect of the industry could be extended. Many people are now willing to pay a generous amount of money on manicures, hair dyes, waxing hair from their bodies, adding eyelash extensions and sometimes even undergoing cosmetic surgeries to achieve a greater level of so-called attractiveness.

Mass production and consumption spread across all classes and consumer preferences.

Much like the sun-tan, there was always a justification or rationale that accompanied consumer choice. In contemporary North American society, for example, whether one considers themselves a “foodie,” enjoying decadent and typically more expensive foods, versus someone who opts for microwave dinners, you can find both ends of the spectrum equally manufactured and justified. Despite the type of food, the industry continues to leech its way into all areas. Both extremes of food choices are still laced with cultural industrialization. Although the foodie might find they are experiencing something more rare and spectacular than the person watching re-runs and eating a microwaved Hungry-Man dinner, each consumer has in the same way been affected by the industry. The public is catered for “…with a hierarchical range of mass-produced products of varying quality, thus advancing the rule of complete quantification. Everybody must behave (as if spontaneously) in accordance with his previously determined and indexed level, and choose the category of mass product turned out for his type” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 2). The foodie adopts an elite persona, feeling that they deserve the luxury of decadent food. The industry tells them this. Meanwhile, the same industry convinces those that opt for the microwave dinners

that they are making an equally responsible decision – one that suits their needs and desires.

The blanket mechanism of the culture industry denies no obedient consumer.

3. Capitalism: Fitting in(to) Mass-Production

To understand Adorno’s critique of the culture industry, we must also understand his thoughts on capitalism. While any number of understandings of capitalism exist (much like our understandings of the thing), Adorno emphasized the cultural implications specifically that capitalism caused. The mid-twentieth century introduced a new means of production, economic market and thus, mass consumption. It was as a result of this shift that the culture industry emerged. Since the mid-twentieth century, Horkheimer and Adorno observed a steady progression towards a society that embodied the influences of “monopoly” capitalism

(Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 1): sameness, predictability, manufactured need, loss of autonomy and a world where money and identity had surpassed purity and individual freedom. They accused North American capitalism of being responsible for loss of autonomous art. On this topic, Held said, “This consciousness is not at all concerned with the material but rather, only with traces left behind in it by the economic market” (Held 1980,

122). Adorno believed that artists were no longer able to produce art that was a reflection of a free society but were alternatively pressured into creating art motivated by “market exchange-value.” He explained, “In late capitalism everything, living human activity included is increasingly so determined by valuation for another (exchange-value) that its value in and for itself tends to disappear” (Jarvis 1998, 117) suggesting that art, even human lives, had become commodity items.

Both Rawding and Garland offered accounts of “proving themselves” to either an employer or an “arbitrary someone,” therefore supporting Adorno’s argument. Society demanded that these artists adhered to particular rules or structures to validate their worth and capability to function within the parameters of a capitalist economy. Rawding who,

when asked if her thing had been stifled, answered, “Not really. Honestly, I feel like this industry I’m in is sort of…off the grid? These people don’t really live by the standards of society that much. I don’t know how to explain it…we go to work and we draw some pictures and we don’t really take ourselves that seriously.” She also added, when asked if having more money would influence her thing, “Money isn’t that important to me. I just want it so I can get by…some luxuries are nice, but I think that enjoying my job is more important than that. I’m lucky to be around people that are like-minded … it’s about being happy.” However, by disclosing that there were times when “proving herself” was necessary to garner the level of freedom she eventually achieved, Rawding has validated one of

Adorno’s predictions. She explained, “I had to get the job that I have now. I had to be really consistent without being pushy…this is somebody that has a business – an apprenticeship is sort of a free education. You don’t get paid for it but you don’t have to pay either.” Dillon

Garland, who remarked that the film industry typically requires some degree of paying one’s dues, offered similar feedback. “You need to prove that you can make money. Do something you didn’t necessarily think you’d be doing ‘cause then you get to make what you want,” he explained. When asked if he felt any limitations in his creativity and what was holding him back from realizing these artistic ambitions, he said, “Money, definitely money.

Money and getting myself into a spot where people trust me with their money…In the industry, I think if I can take a small amount of money and turn it into a profit, I would be trusted with more money the next time.” This standardization is another link in the industrialization chain.

Under capitalism, “…all production is for the market; goods are produced not in order to meet human needs and desires but for the sake of profit…this too a procedure for making

and treating unlike things as identical” (Adorno 2001, 1) preventing creative freedom, or the thing, to flourish. Although capitalism was thought to accommodate human need, it only created more of it. Society was transformed by capitalism; their thoughts, experiences, and artistic representation had become reflective of the economic system under which they functioned.

Horkheimer and Adorno explained, “…today in material production the mechanism of supply and demand is disintegrated, in the superstructure it still operates as a check in the rulers’ favor…Capitalist production so confines them, body and soul, that they fall helpless victims to what is offered to them” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 7-8). Capitalism manufactured alike products on such a mass scale that society, as Adorno saw it, was moving towards social uniformity. This totality meant that the sameness found in produced goods was also established in individuals. Human beings became but a collection of clones. The masses of people looked, spoke and behaved the same. They “needed,” “desired” and

“wanted” the same things, therefore resulting in a world of replicates. You might ask what is it that makes capitalism so uniform? Why exactly, did mass production become so appealing? If companies, businesses and individuals had become motivated by making money (they had), then every corner cut, every creative sacrifice and every diminished freedom became more important. Whether or not a product was really needed was irrelevant to the producer; they would manufacture a need so that profit margins would increase. This manufactured need was often targeted at achieving the goal of greater human freedom.

As an example, let’s return to Adorno’s accounts of camping. If the purpose of camping is to spend an evening under the stars, free from the restrictions of our ‘other’ homes, then you might imagine that little worry or even preparation would be required.

What is meant to be an escape should presumably feel like one. Yet, we are led to believe through advertising and mass production of camping equipment that our experiences will be much more leisurely or “free” should we first acquire a collection of camping gear prior to our getaway. Items such as camp kitchens, inflatable seating, picnic tablecloths, portable showers and fancy lighting are all available to the consumer to “improve” their camping experience. Consumers soon believe they do in fact want these items. Before long, the exchange value of camping gear exceeds what is really needed to enjoy an authentic night under the stars. Ingrid Singing Grass offers her insight on this notion saying,

It’s kind of this back and forth tension because it’s easy to get into the ‘less than’ attitude with anything. Whether it’s appearances, whether it’s what we have or don’t have or what money we make. ‘Cause we’re in a ‘less than’ culture. We’re made to feel less than so that we buy more shit and then feel better about ourselves. And I hate that, but I’m still part of it. I wish I could not be affected by it.

This emphasizes that if consumers opt to deny purchasing the goods we are told we need, we are looked at as a “lesser” citizen in both economic and social worth. We are expected to keep up. Maintaining a secure place in society, one where you can fit in and be accepted and successful now requires that you “buy more shit.”

Globalization: Perpetuating the Culture Industry

As a way of demonstrating how Adorno’s forecasted outcomes of capitalism came to life in contemporary North America, I will briefly discuss globalization. Globalization is a further characteristic of a capitalist society. While my thesis does not elaborate on or critique globalization, its interconnected and mass-societal nature is relevant to Adorno’s outlooks on capitalism. Interconnected economies allow for economic production and trade to occur in different ways than those found in pre-globalized societies. Capitalism found that production

of almost any good (art included) is more cost-efficient, if executed on a mass scale.

The textile and clothing industry is a good example of this. I would wager that if each person reading this were to check the tag on any piece of clothing worn, they are likely to find that it was not manufactured in North America. That is because, for the most part, textile production costs less if outsourced to a country where employees are willing to work for a reduced wage. What might cost a fair price to manufacture in Canada or the United

States under minimum wage regulations might only cost a few cents in a country such as

Bangladesh, China, or Cambodia where textile industries are plentiful.

An economically motivated society prioritizes this exchange-value over any other potential benefit or ramification. This motivation has led to further industrial investment internationally, perpetuating the textile industry (among many other manufactured goods such as cars, electronics, food, etc.) worldwide. North American companies often construct factories as a means to employ citizens in these developing nations and benefit from cheap labor. Factory conditions and fair wages are overlooked; the textile industry does not care about freedom and autonomy.

These overlooked industry standards eventually helped shape the culture industry.

The same disregard for human autonomy that was experienced for many workers in the textile industry is what would become the norm for culture itself in contemporary North

American societies. Economic gain and financial margins would become far more important than genuine human freedom and leisure, much like predicted in the 1940s to 1960s. Textile factories in less-developed countries “…are able to provide low-cost and abundant labor supply, while developed countries provide management, technical and financial resources.

Consumers, in particular, are seen as the great beneficiaries in this global integration program”

(Chan 2003, 1102). The textile industry aimed to mass-produce goods so that everyone could enjoy the benefits of owning them.

This meant that everyone could enjoy wearing floral prints, thick-rimmed glasses or

Crocs at a minimal cost. The culture industry noted these trends (which were only trends because there was so much of the same thing available) and began further production. The cycle of manufacturing a need, followed by consumerism, continued. Globalization simply made this process more accessible.

The same disregard for human needs and desires that is found in international textile manufacturing is similarly experienced in North America. Perhaps it appears differently, but the same means of control exists from both the industry and the consumer wings. Those producing goods have a greater say in our culture than those waiting to see what types of culture will be available to them. Let’s look at ice cream as an example. We are offered multiple flavours of ice cream, but in the end, they are all still ice cream. This is what contemporary capitalism for Adorno is all about, offering consumers an array of choices, but these “choices” are all within a narrow range. Chocolate, vanilla or Bengal tiger, they are all ice cream. Additionally, there is no possibility of opting out. In terms of culture, there are always new films being made, but within generic conventions, to more or less standardized lengths, predictable cast, storylines, etc. Because they form a basis for cultural knowledge/being able to socialize with others, everybody has to participate, leaving consumers without the choices they thought they had.

Industrializing Entertainment and Meeting Consumer Demands

Adorno’s further critique of capitalism was that it had fooled individuals into believing that the system contributed to their freedom rather than subtracted from it. The culture industry

was somehow a rationalization for this outcome. Society was able to justify its consumer habits through convincing themselves that they had no choice but to participate in what was available to them. Eventually this would become a truth; it would be all that was available.

The industrialization of culture was rationalized because it was perceived as the most efficient or even logical process. The textile industry, for instance, emphasizes this point.

As materials are often produced in developing nations at a reduced cost, consumers are, as an outcome, able to purchase material goods at an equally lesser cost. They rationalize this choice by thinking and believing, “well at least they have some income” or, “it’s better than their alternative” and so on. Yet, society has not challenged or questioned the capitalist structure to venture into what alternatives might be possible. Rather, we accept these economic systems and justify any adhered guilt or apprehensions through rationalizing consumption decisions. Dillon Garland applies this philosophy to his experience with formal education remembering, “School taught me to be safe and go make some money. Do what you’re told.” The culture industry remains resilient and operational. Because of this ongoing process, people were convinced they were indeed being offered what they wanted.

In some ways, they were.

As previously mentioned, Adorno felt that the intricacies of capitalism and the influences it represented blinded people from their purest desires. While mass culture is consumed by the masses it is not produced by the masses and therefore, deepens the loss of autonomy. This is experienced in two ways. Firstly, because everything from art to physical appearance had become commodified, people were robbed of the organic nature of production or having their input represented. As goods were produced by a few rather than the masses, there was little opportunity for individual decision-making or personalized

experiences to manifest. People were offered a limited menu of consumer choices, sooner or later feeling convinced that these were their only choices. Autonomy was lost at the very foundation of capitalism – the production phase. What if you wanted something that had not been mass-produced? Not everyone could or should be the producer of all consumer goods.

Not everyone would be an artist, much like not everyone would be a doctor or a hockey player or any other pursued profession. However, Adorno argued that culture itself had become commodified – and that is an element that simply cannot be wholly represented by a narrow margin of any society. Why should only some have the vocation to dictate a total cultural practice? Culture had adopted the same efficiency role as other material goods and

Adorno did not believe that these two separate entities were comparable.

The second outcome that affects autonomy is representational. Because the production of culture is isolated to a few, there are inevitably groups that feel mis/unrepresented. There are minority groups inside the culture industry that don’t identify themselves as being part of it. An artistic example is the television network “Black

Entertainment Network” (BET) (Black Entertainment Television 2013). The Black community produces BET and their target audience is identified as “African-American

Adults 18-49” (Black Entertainment Television 2013). Their intent is to provide,

“…contemporary entertainment that speaks to young Black adults from an authentic, unapologetic viewpoint of the Black experience” (Black Entertainment Television 2013). Yet, they have no choice but to participate in the culture industry. In this example, the Black community still cannot experience ‘freedom’ as they cannot even practice true alienation from capitalism. They experience the ramifications of living ‘outside’ the system – they become the scrutinized, the incapable, they become the villain. The web address for BET’s

site is emphasizing the suggested nature that the targeted black audience is to think of themselves as consumers. Is that really authentic in any way to the Black experience? Adorno would accentuate that this is but a strategy of the industry, “everyone is provided for so that none may escape” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944,

2). Even targeted audiences are merged into every other audience, ultimately eliminating any sense of individuality. Because those who try to function peripheral to the culture industry cannot survive in contemporary society, they are never free of the constraints that capitalism crafts. El Jones adds, “I’m a black woman, and outspoken black woman. And that’s difficult…I think it looks fearless to people and I do kind of say a lot … but it’s not easy,” demonstrating the challenges that the black community can face. While they fight to preserve their own culture, they also struggle with the efforts it can take to achieve this.

Trying to “escape,” as Adorno has phrased, can be accompanied by a great deal of fear. In the culture industry, “Anyone who goes cold and hungry, even if his prospects were once good, is branded. He is an outsider; and, apart from certain capital crimes, the most moral of sins is to be an outsider” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 16). People could no longer even alienate themselves, yet they were tolerant of this social norm.

The point is, mass production of consumer goods meant narrowing the variety of what was produced. This was translated into culture, Adorno saw; hence, the

“industrialization” of culture. Assembly lines and mass production have increased since the mid-twentieth century, thus breeding social actors into a conformed lifestyle both internally and externally of the work place. The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2005, the United

States had “336,000 functioning factories” (Aeppel 2006). Many factory workers are assigned the same tedious, repetitive task to complete each workday. According to a recent

report by the Center for American Progress, “…in 2006, American families worked an average of 11 hours more per week than they did in 1979… now many top-level professionals view the traditional 40 hour work week as a ‘part-time’ job…many feel…that a

40-hour week would be career suicide...employees now work 50 hours or more” (Bradford

2011). These statistics highlight the pressures and expectations of a capitalist culture. The trends that Adorno saw in the mid-twentieth century have only intensified in the contemporary era.

A contemporary artistic example of how social habits were transformed by capitalism is found in the film industry. Going to the movies in a culturally industrialized society meant that the viewer could anticipate exactly what his or her experience would be. What we might describe as a “factory produced” film would be one that fit into the mold of any manufactured good. The process of production and final product were like that found in any other factory; structured, linear and nothing but duplications of what would reliably sell. For instance, if the film industry observed that super-hero goods were popular, they would increase production of super-hero films. As the availability of super-hero films increased on the market, so did their consumption. After all, what else were people supposed to watch?

Because of this, filmmakers recognized that consumers were beginning to demand the very products that were being supplied to them in mass quantities. Producing the same product over and over is more financially predictable than trying something new. It was so powerful that sheer logic had succumbed to the parameters of good consumerism.

Because the film industry was manufacturing for the capitalist market, producers felt the need to yield a standardized, predictable film. “Movies and radio no longer need to pretend to be art,” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 1) Horkheimer and Adorno said. They just

needed to make money. While Adorno may have experienced only the beginning of the phenomena, we can see that the contemporary film industry has become the exact epitome of his description. Nick Allen of the Telegraph Journal writes, “By one count, a record 31 sequels and 17 reboots are expected to hit screens next year as executives steer clear of original and potentially costly ideas” (Allen 2013) accentuating the cultural trends that

Adorno forecasted are indeed practiced in the mid-twentieth century. Mass production has indeed continued to grow. Allen continues saying, “The reluctance of studios to take risks on original concepts follows a series of disastrous results this year” (Allen 2013) and his research shows that ‘risky’ films, or those that attempt to stimulate audiences outside of the culture industry’s conformities, do in fact make less money than a reliable sequel or predictable romantic comedy. Even as a filmmaker in Halifax rather than Hollywood,

Garland experienced these same market trends. As he mentioned earlier, no one was taking a risk on “heart” anymore. Ingrid Singing Grass feels similar pressures as a visual artist explaining,

The problem with capitalism is that it is competitive based: survival of the fittest. What’s happened is that it has opened the doors and often times it’s the most cutthroat people that can get to the top. They can crawl their way, scare everybody and when it becomes that, it’s a cold system. A lot of what’s in creation is love and truth. I don’t think a hard-core, competitive, controlled system is conducive to that. What’s out there in mass is so controlled. When you look at the fringe you see people out there doing the most amazing stuff.

The problem with a capitalist driven society is that the fringe is overlooked and considered too risky for producers.

Keith Simanton, managing editor of Internet Movie Database, said “…the number of sequels did not necessarily mean Hollywood was running out of original ideas, but that

“sequels tend to make money.” He elaborates, “…at the end of the day you go with what you

know because the audience seems to go with what they know. There were a lot of big gambles this year that didn't come off...It’s not a new lesson but it's a more costly lesson”

(Allen 2013). The Fall of a Nation released in “…1916, is considered the ‘first feature- length’ movie sequel” (Avila 2013). According to,

The Story of Hollywood: An Illustrated History… [the] silent film is a sequel to director D.W. Griffith's controversial 1915 classic, The Birth of a Nation. In his book, The Birth of a Nation: A History of the Most Controversial Motion Picture of All Time…author Melvyn Stokes writes that Dixon made the sequel to capitalize on the success of first film. (Avila 2012)

Adorno only saw this trend increase by the mid-twentieth century with films like The Blob,

James Bond and The Fly all producing sequels. Simanton could not offer a more accurate recount of Adorno’s predictions – the industry had created a predictable consumer who sought predictable film.

Another example that Adorno might offer is the way that the film industry, particularly the romantic comedy genre, manipulates our sense of physical attraction. Film stars almost always satisfy an anticipated physical appearance. The women are thin, clear- skinned, straight-toothed, wide-eyed and young while the men are muscular, rugged, tall and flirty. We perceive and accept these qualities as “attractive.” We expect that these two characters will meet under quirky circumstances, overcome some great relationship hurdle and in the end, love will prevail without so much as a strand of hair ever falling out of place.

The women wake up with a fresh face of make-up while the men, always maintain that perfect “five o’clock shadow” that viewers swoon over. This is, more or less, the formula for any great and financially successful romantic comedy. The viewer can rest assure that the image seen on the big screen is one worth aspiring to achieve – it is the image most coveted by society.

To take this one step further, let us consider what television depicts as “sexy” or attractive in Adorno’s decades. Although the typical sex-scene in the mid-twentieth century television show might not be quite as risqué as is seen in contemporary society, Adorno’s foretelling of what was to come has proven accurate. It is common to hear feedback from viewers who believe they are only recently being offered, “Good television — television worthy of consideration as art” (NYT). New York Times columnist, Ginia Bellafonte uses shows like the Sopranos or, House of Cards as examples to discuss television now worthy of its viewers. A general characteristic that merits the viewer’s interest is the elaborate and increasingly explicit sex scenes. It is common to hear a discussion on a contemporary television show stating it, “has a good plot, the acting is good, and the sex scenes are crazy.”

This would expectedly be a good thing, “…but what’s striking about the current depiction is how much of it just isn’t sexy …The audience, at home in bed in need of diversion, is betrayed. What they get instead is sex that is transactional, utilitarian — the end product of a kind of twisted careerism. Is this the sex we deserve?” asks Bellafonte.

Adorno predicted the forcefulness of the culture industry. It has manipulated our biological attraction to one another, and “…at a time of such relentless obsession on work- family ‘balance,’ an obsession that leaves little cultural room to think about more pleasurable kinds of human engagement” (Bellafonte 2013) has fulfilled the need for mindless entertainment. His predictions have been met. The film and television industry has expanded so greatly that accessibility is a reality for most North American citizens. From downloading on Internet sites, cable television expansions and services such as Netflix, the possibilities are plentiful. Regulations or law, therefore allowing even greater exposure, typically do not bind these options. Some websites, if offering film or television suitable for

“adults only” asks that you answer the question, “are you over 18?” at which time, the consumer presses the button indicating “yes” and the credits start rolling. It’s that simple.

The sex shown on television is simply an extension of our cultural expectations. There is less room for sentiment and more room for portraying as elaborate an act as possible.

Eventually, as Bellafonte points out, even the extreme sex scenes, much like “good television” itself only become mundane. These scenes are not only expected but also highly commodifiable and therefore cannot be as genuinely exciting as they strive to be. Perhaps contemporary audiences are getting the sex that they deserve after all.

Commodification: The Sequel

Adorno’s critique even acknowledged the culture industry’s effect on nature. He said,

“Nature is viewed by the mechanism of social domination as a healthy contrast to society, and is therefore denatured. Pictures showing green trees, a blue sky, and moving clouds make these aspects of nature into so many cryptograms for factory chimneys and service stations”

(Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 15). Contemporary social actors find themselves viewing nature through the lenses of their expensive camera or smart phones rather than their own eyes. Our experiences even with the most natural elements found on earth have been altered by the culture industry. We see a beautiful rainbow or wild animal and opt to dig around in our pockets for the technological device that will capture that moment. By doing so, we do not capture natural beauty’s aura, but rather proof to the rest of the world that we could have experienced something genuine. We place value on the recreation of nature but not actual nature; “…we have a falsified memento of liberal society, in which people supposedly wallowed in erotic plush-lined bedrooms instead of taking open-air baths as in the case today…” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 15). Manufacturers are willing to sabotage the

natural world for production materials or industrialization. Yet, they will maintain a false sense of their connection to nature. The natural world has become but another commodity.

Alex MacLeod sums up his experience with the commodification of nature and how this social progression came about. He tells me,

A lot of the time in the world, religion has failed. Most people no longer have religious faith but still have the same wiring for religious faith…a whole bunch of them have now inserted culture where there used to be religious faith. So, I could never go to church but if there were an amazing art show or concert, I would have this transcended experience through music or through literature or through nature. So they look at whales or icebergs or nature. So whales, icebergs, Cabot trail, and concerts – these have all taken the place of religion in our meaning… structures of meaning. So what they were talking about what religion seemed to be before the nineteenth century seemed to prescribe transformation. Religion would say, behave this way and you’ll go to heaven…so there was a gap between the world you lived in socially and the promise of any religious faith. Nowadays most people I know who are 25 or 35 won’t talk to you very much about their church. But they’ll talk to you all day about culture. They love culture.

MacLeod identifies that our “wiring” has remained the same since pre-capitalist eras but our social environments have not. Social progression has manifested in viewing culture as a replacement, in ways, for religion. We have commodified nature because things of beauty such as whales and icebergs now represent what we perceive as an escape from society. This escape, much like the promise of heaven or other religious beliefs, is appealing to individuals.

It is what Adorno might describe as the “tension” in society or, as MacLeod explains, the

“gap” between the world we live in and the world we could live in. However, as religion has receded in many ways, people had to find a new outlet to channel their desires. As culture became more and more desirable, the opportunity to commodify on such things, (or

“everything”) also increased. A capitalist economy recognized the tendencies of human requirements and sought to profit on the escapable nature of culture. Horkheimer and

Adorno expressed, “All are free to dance and enjoy themselves, just as they have been free,

since the historical neutralization of religion, to join any of the innumerable sects. But freedom to choose an ideology—since ideology always reflects economic coercion— everywhere proves to be freedom to choose what is always the same,” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 24) outlining how the culture industry inconspicuously trumped religion. The tension, or gap that has been lost resulted in a disillusioned choice for sameness.

4. High Art versus Light Art: Class Structure and Art

Adorno often spoke of “high” art or “serious” art, in contrast to “light” art, as a means of contextualizing his argument on the artistic (de)evolution he detected. He noted that the social environment under which artists created in pre-capitalist versus capitalist societies were different. He explained that a capitalist society “…impeded the development of autonomous, independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves”

(Jarvis 1998, 106) and therefore, art was not genuinely created from a place of free expression. Adorno saw that art created in the mid-twentieth century was traveling further away from a state of spirituality and closer towards conformity. Witkin’s analysis claimed,

“In the transmutation of serious art, literature or music into the cultural goods produced by the culture industry, all genuine spiritual content attaching to the original is lost while pseudo-cultural piety towards these appropriations is heightened” (Witkin 2003, 30). Pre and early-capitalist societies were excited about the unexpected but by the mid-twentieth century, art, “…ha[d] lost every restraint and there is no need to pay any money, the proximity of art to those who are exposed to it completes the alienation and assimilates one to the other under the banner of triumphant objectivity” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 21). The shift into mass-production led to the simultaneous objectification of art. The intention of the artist and the consumer alike were manipulated by market demands rather than freedom of expression.

Artists faced the dichotomy of producing freely from their thing – a place that had now become a risky market venture. Sometimes the artists themselves became objectified; such is the case with many actors and musicians who become a “brand.” While Adorno did not often offer definitions, it is important to gain an understanding of what he meant by terms,

“high” or “serious” art versus “light” art. High art was present in early-capitalist societies

and was reflective of the society in which it was created. Although capitalism had been introduced at this time, the influences of the economic structure it would later become were not the same. Light art, which was dominant in the mid-twentieth century, was additionally a representation of the surrounding society. The difference, however, was that early-capitalist societies did not place the same limitations on artists – the artist was capable of expressing his or her thing from a freer environment. The art, as a result, was both thought provoking and stimulating. Those who consumed art (typically the bourgeois) did not know what they might discover at a gallery, what they might hear at a concert, or what they might see at the theatre. The unexpected nature of serious art was reflective of a society that did not maintain expectations of the artist. The artist could simply be an artist – free of market requirements and able to produce something that reflected beauty.

Some might contest that mass-culture or mass-exposure to art is a good thing. Why would Adorno support a society that included class division and lack of accessibility of the arts for those underprivileged? Adorno did not advocate for class division, nor did he see any benefit in withholding high art from anyone, despite wealth and status. His critique was that mass-culture translated to placing emphasis on consumption and producing sellable art.

According to many Halifax artists, the artist’s goal in contemporary societies must remain, to some extent, financial. In pre-capitalist economies, art still reflected society; yet, this society was not driven by consumerism. Adorno’s point, in this instance, was that early-capitalist societies were not based on consumption, which allowed for social tensions to be identified and for high art to exist. Because artists, in many cases, were provided patronage, the element of conformity and sameness ceased to be of concern. High art could exist under this pretense. What was different in mid-twentieth century society was that every class, including

the elites, consumed the same thing. The culture industry, “…seeks to process both high and low art and to assimilate them to a single schema, thereby integrating its consumers” (Witkin

2003, 47). The opportunity and desire to create something other than what the industry proposed, was lost. It is for this reason that Adorno saw mass-production and ultimately mass-culture as a degradation of high art. Everyone, from every class was limited in their consumption choices, regardless of artistic preference.

Despite influential surroundings, Mike Ryan delivers an argument that might contest some of Adorno’s arguments on freedom of expression and production of high art. He explains, “I believe that having the ability to affect other human beings... having the ability to tap into an emotion in them that inspires them, or makes them imagine, or believe in themselves, or even see the world in a different way, is certainly contributing to human freedom.” He believes that the simple risk of being an artist and facing the challenges that accompanies that career is representational of a particular freedom. Adorno may have argued that society could no longer freely imagine something other than light art, but Ryan expresses that simply being an artist offers the unique ability to do just that. Recognize the constraints of the structure and dare consumers to do the same. As outlined in chapter one, the recognition of lost freedom may be all that remains in a capitalist culture. This recognition is also a rare triumph according to Adorno. Ryan explains that it is still the artist’s responsibility to share these emotional discoveries and do his part to contribute to human autonomy in the best way he can. While the vehicle to deliver these messages may be limited, sharing the recognition is not.

Light art emerged concurrently with the growth of capitalism. In the mid-twentieth century, when Horkheimer and Adorno found themselvess in New York and later Hollywood,

they were disheartened by the restraints that artists were experiencing. They noted that artistic works were all alike; there were no remnants of free expression. And “Since all the trends of the culture industry are profoundly embedded in the public by the whole social process…” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 9) it was inevitable for conformity to occur. The entertainment industry in the 1940s-1960s highlighted this economic intention. One example is found in the film-industry which, “…shortly before World War I, the material prerequisite of its expansion, was precisely its deliberate acceptance of the public’s need as recorded at the box-office – a procedure which was hardly thought necessary before the pioneering days of the screen” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 9). This meant that before box-office records were kept and became crucial to the film industry, film had no prerequisites. These records were not factored into creativity or production until the expansion of capitalism. That is not to say that Adorno did not like products of the culture industry, or that artists lacked talent, but rather he expressed that the monotony found in everyday society was translated into the arts community.

Horkheimer and Adorno explained that because capitalism was designed to garner wealth, the focus of creativity had been shifted to meet this goal; their “…motives are markedly economic” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 22). At no fault of the artist, creativity had become as unexciting as the world around them. The culture industry was so powerful that people were unaware of its effects. This complacency was but another characteristic that further reinforced the industry. Adorno knew that everyone was part of this immeasurably large industry, himself included. Jarvis’ interpretation of Adorno finds, “all forms of consciousness develop and are inextricably intertwined with socio-life processes” (Jarvis

1998, 203). How could he blame the individual artist for a manufactured culture that

everyone had a hand in creating? Light art does “…not shatter existing images of reality, they reproduce them,” (Jarvis 1998, 94) indicating that the art is but a mere representation of the world as it is.

Because the artist could not detach himself or herself from society, their creations could only reflect integration rather than disassociation. The artist, in this instance, had no choice but to create art representative of a society that demanded individual integration and cooperation. Adorno noted that this was different in pre-capitalist decades as the artist's role was wholly that – to create art, not commodify it. Alex MacLeod supports Adorno’s philosophies saying,

The Frankfurt school wanted something that would disturb you. So high art would be like going to the movie theatre and there being a six hour movie. People would say, ’what?! Movies are not six hours!!’ and the Frankfurt School would say, ’why not?’ Well because in order to distribute them, they have to be an hour and whatever minutes. A six hour movie wouldn’t even count as a movie, pointing out that the consumer wouldn’t even recognize a film as a film unless it included the same characteristics as what they would expect a movie to incorporate. This strengthens

Adorno’s argument that all art looked alike. Any creation that did not meet consumer’s ideas of art would not even be recognized as such.

By the mid-twentieth century, not only did culture avoid any attempt to stray from societal expectations; it no longer wanted to. The culture industry, therefore, “…does not refer to production in itself but to the ‘standardization’, the ‘pseudo individualization’ of cultural entities themselves and to the rationalization of promotion and distribution techniques” (Jarvis 1998, 91). As a result of this absolute attitude, artists (and consumers alike) were able to defend their mass-production of light art. It was what people wanted, what they were demanding, so they were simply providing a demanded product – and they

were completely accurate in this defense.

Jarvis’ findings suggest Adorno “…does not intend thereby that autonomous art arises fully only in a class society through the exclusion of the working classes” (Jarvis 1998,

10) but rather, that capitalism pressures all classes into placing less emphases on autonomy and more emphasis on commodification. Because capitalism was still in its “early” stages, artists were not under the same pressures to create works as a means of survival; money was not necessarily the artist’s motivation. This was the case for four reasons. Firstly, many wealthy elites would hire artists to work as their personal creators. It established and was viewed as a symbol of the elite’s status and wealth. Because the artist was commissioned in this way, earning money, and ultimately survival, was possible. Secondly, in pre and early- capitalist societies, communities or wealthy institutions commissioned many artists. For example, an architect or painter might be hired to design and decorate a church or mural in a town. The Sistine Chapel in Rome is an example of how artist, Michelangelo, would have had the freedom and liberty to simply “be an artist” – the church had provided him with payment to do so. Thirdly, globalization did not yet exist. Mass-production, interconnectivity and a myriad of non-local opportunities were not available. Art was produced on the grassroots level, therefore maintaining local integrity and resemblance. It was not driven by market demands and the need to sell. Art could reflect the beauty in one’s surroundings rather than the monotony of a capitalist society. The “truth” was more readily available to an artist as his or her influences were limited to that of their immediate environments. Finally, and arguably most importantly, commissioning art was not the ultimate goal in early-capitalist societies. The artist did not consider financial gain greater or even equal to artistic integrity. In contemporary societies, the thing is no longer prioritized

over economic prosperity. In this regard, early-capitalist societies enabled the artist’s thing to flourish and maintain a greater sense of freedom. So long as artists are influenced by anticipations and market pressures found in their society, their art cannot be a reflection of

“pure expression” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1994, 8).

The Purpose of Art

The autonomous nature of art meant that it had no intentional purpose. Adorno did not believe that pre and early-capitalist art was void of societal influences, but rather that these influences did not translate into commodification and mass-production as was seen in the mid-twentieth century. The purpose of high art was to serve no purpose. He often referenced the works of Beethoven, one of the most well-known and influential composers in history.

By contemporary standards, this type of talent or success would merit wealth and success in the economic market. However, Beethoven, in his time, did not necessarily have these outcomes in mind when producing his works. He did not consider the need to keep compositions to a particular length or structure. He did not market himself to local radio stations to garner airtime or adjust his appearance to make himself more attractive and marketable. These considerations did not yet exist. Beethoven did not care because it was something that was not necessary to consider – this pressure was not part of the artistic equation. Technological and globalized means of production and marketing have only contributed to the already budding process of capitalism. With these contemporary tools, the culture industry flourishes in ways that were not even fathomable in pre-capitalist societies.

Beethoven was free of these measures and therefore, also free to create from a place of pure expression.

Some Halifax artists who I interviewed contest with Adorno’s reference to

Beethoven’s freedom of expression, believing that similar expectations would have existed in these times as well. Mark Little says, “I think there’s tension in art. I think it’s overwhelmed by the amount of art that doesn’t have tension. But I think that would have been the case in

Beethoven’s time too…” Conceivably, the difference in contemporary society is that we are able to identify the saturation of light art. As Little remarks, there might still be tension in art, there is just more that doesn’t [express tension]. Does that necessarily mean that light art did not exist in Beethoven’s era or that it simply did not “overwhelm” the market? It is imaginable that historical light art simply did not gain longevity and therefore, we are unexposed or even unaware of its existence? When I asked Alex MacLeod about his thing, his response related to the idea of longevity and how he desired to create art that could stand the “test of time.” He explains,

I’m always thinking about the great things I’ve read from people that are long dead. So I’m thinking about ancient Greeks…so for me, I am always trying to create an image or a plot or an idea that is so stripped down of everything… that we say isn’t it amazing that classical literature that is relevant today? I’m almost trying to write something that could be sent back. I’m kind of doing the opposite in that I could send it to the Greeks and they would say ‘that is it’. Trying to paint a painting that you could show to Renoir and he would say, ‘ahh that’s a painting’. Real work that sticks with us.

Most interviewees agreed that “good” art, whatever that might mean to us as individuals, always stands the test of time. They believe that that might be where high art is found in contemporary societies. As Mike Ryan sums it up, “A good song is always a good song.”

Much like a contemporary opinion on the compositions of Beethoven, the general consensus among these Halifax artists, which challenges Adorno’s arguments, is that light art has always existed but does not maintain longevity. Twenty years from now, it is plausible that much of the light art that exists in contemporary society will not endure the test of time. The

shift was evident in the mid-twentieth century as more artists were forced to consider their audience. In bourgeois society, the upper class managed any “market elements of the arts.

They hired the artist to “express his or her thing” leaving social influence aside. That is why

Horkheimer and Adorno believed, “Arts as a separate sphere was always possible only in a bourgeois society” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 19). This freedom, be it conscious or not, was a reflection of the artist’s society, “In so far, until the eighteenth century, the buyer’s patronage shielded the artists from the market, they were dependent on the buyer and his objectives” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 19). People lived in a way that the social norm and expectation for the artist was that there wasn’t one.

The attempt to produce art void of industry expectancies is simply not profitable in contemporary societies. The predicted trajectory towards mass commodification had been fulfilled. Adorno witnessed the restrictions that were present to the artist in the 1950s and

60s and appear to remain in contemporary society. Jarvis explains Adorno’s argument “…Is not that autonomous art is better than heteronomous art. Rather, this autonomization of art is an inescapable historical process that can be seen powerfully at work just where the most zealous protests are made in favour of supposedly ‘objective’ art” (Jarvis 1998, 133). He articulated that despite society’s perceived understanding of the culture industry (that it was in fact offering greater autonomy), the truth is that the evolution of a capitalist economy would inevitably lead to the production of mass-produced, light art. Horkheimer and Adorno elaborated on the shift to light art stating, “The so-called dominant idea is like a file which ensures order but no coherence. The whole and the parts are alike; there is no antithesis and no connection. Their prearranged harmony is a mockery of what had to be striven after in the great bourgeois works of art,” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 4) pointing out that art found

in capitalist societies maintains but one goal: to adhere to the rules of conformity and expectation.

An accessible example that Adorno may have witnessed in the 1950s was the craze over Elvis Presley. Elvis, a young, attractive singer became so popular, he was dubbed, “The

King.” He “…managed to sell twice as many records in the entire decade of the 1950s with only these two years [1954-55] of recording than any other performer” (Elvis Presley

Biography). Not only was Elvis a rock and roll sensation, but as the culture industry discovered, Elvis was auspiciously a highly marketable and profitable entity. Elvis flooded the economic market in multiple capacities. He “…starred in 31 feature films as an actor and two theatrically released concert documentary films, all of which enjoyed financial success.

For a number of years he was one of Hollywood’s top box office draws and one of its highest-paid actors” (Elvis Presley) demonstrating that the wider-known Elvis became, the further the possibilities could be stretched within the industry. In 1992, “…the U.S. Postal

Service announced that Elvis’ image would be used for a commemorative postage stamp”

(Elvis Presley) thus extending the opportunity to capitalize on his image far outside his function as an artist. The Elvis stamp “…is the most widely publicized stamp issue in the history of the U.S. Postal Service and it is the top selling commemorative postage stamp of all time. The USPS printed 500 million of them, three times the usual print run for a commemorative stamp,” (Elvis Presley) demonstrating that the culture industry had found ways to maximize profits on the Elvis image rather than allowing for any artistic authenticity to be explored on his part.

The irony concerning Elvis is that, aside from his charm and decidedly beautiful singing voice, he wasn’t much of what one might consider “an artist.” That is, Elvis did not

write his own music, he did not play an instrument to any notable extent, nor did he express a problem with succumbing to the culture industry’s standards, which continued to manufacture the “Elvis” brand. To this day, t-shirts, lunch boxes, games, and various other forms of memorabilia are manufactured. Although Elvis died in 1977, products continue to be mass-produced with the Elvis brand as a means of economic profitability. Elvis, while an artistic success story in terms of the culture industry, would be a good example of one whose works Adorno would categorize as light art. Elvis was not an artist who felt the deep desire to express his inner thing, necessarily. He was not acknowledging the tensions in society or addressing his passion and inspiration. We can conclude this, as he was complacent about the workings of his own career. He sang the songs he was told to sing and people bought them. He was the epitome of the culture industry – a man that society believed to be an attractive, popular and consumable artist. With this example in mind, Halifax artists might reconsider their arguments on the longevity of light art. Elvis is one of the most well known singers worldwide and has been dead for almost forty years.

Contemporary Society: the Age of Technology

New technologies must also be considered in Adorno’s argument that the culture industry would grow and therefore, stifle the artist’s thing. Most interviewed Halifax artists said that, while these tools did not necessarily affect their thing, it did, in many instances, change the way that they approached their art. Adorno would say that any change in approach would indeed be influencing one’s thing and thus, these artists have experienced limitations despite their perceptions of such.

Some technological tools have allowed for greater artistic achievement – recording from home, advertising art shows on Facebook or Twitter, downloading digital copies of songs or performances; however, choosing not to participate in these advancements typically leaves an artist at a disadvantage. They tend to “fall behind” or go unnoticed in comparison to those who use technological tools. Adorno might argue that partaking in these trends, needing to use the same tools as the next to remain afloat in society, is a perfect example of the culture industry at work. Yet, some artists feel that they freely choose whether or not to indulge in technological options. If they maintain this option to choose, they could be achieving greater artistic freedom than before. I will provide some examples of artist’s responses to highlight both sides of this argument.

Dillon Garland argues that, “piracy is probably the best thing to happen to the film industry.” Piracy, the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work is an illegal act but one that many North American consumers conduct in contemporary society. Downloading sites on the Internet or the ability to “burn” CDs have fostered an even deeper accessibility of mass-production for creative goods. While it might inherently sound counter-productive to allow free access to a film, song or television show that would otherwise provide income, some artists, such as Garland, believe that it is beneficial to his career as an up and coming filmmaker. That, or it would be detrimental to deny that piracy will happen despite opinions on its usefulness.

The contemporary AMC series, Breaking Bad is a good example of positive piracy at work. Entertainment News journalist, James Hibbert reports, “Breaking Bad will not only be remembered as a TV drama that went out on top – creatively, and in terms of popularity – but possibly as a game-changer for underdog TV shows. For the grand series finale…Breaking

Bad hit 10.3 million viewers, with a 5.2 rating among adults 18-49” (Hibbert 2013). Creator of Breaking Bad, Vince Gilligan told BBC’s Chi Chi Izundu that, “piracy ‘helped’ the show to become popular and increase ‘brand awareness’.” He explained, “[It] led to a lot of people watching the series who otherwise would not have…The downside is a lot of folks who worked on the show would have made more money, myself included, if all those downloads had been legal” (Izundo 2013). This example is one that several Halifax artists could relate to. While they would prefer to have made more money in the process, technology, including piracy, has also allowed for other benefits to occur within the culture industry.

Artists tend to realize that they are part of the culture industry whether they like it or not. With a “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” attitude that appears necessary both in the mid- twentieth century and contemporary society, embracing piracy or other tools that enable mass consumption seems like a smart approach for many artists. Mike Ryan says,

There are various music players on the internet like Grooveshark or Songza that will play you whatever the hell you want to hear, by a million bands from all around the world, in any category. You can be extremely selective about your category... you could be in a ‘just got dumped and am thinking about tying the noose’ kind of mood and there’s probably a playlist for that, or there’s probably a playlist for ‘ordered KFC and am about to get my fingers greasy’ too.

This, explaining how accessible music has become for consumers. Horkheimer and Adorno rationalized, “In a competitive society, advertising performed the social service of informing the buyer about the market; it made choice easier and helped the unknown but more efficient supplier to dispose of his goods. Far from costing time, it saved it” (Horkheimer and Adorno

1944, 22) which is exactly the function of these particular “services.” If consumers are ignorant towards industry trends, there is now a service to make those choices “easier.”

These same avenues are available for filmmakers like Garland or even comedians like

Mark Little. Exposure is important – reiterating the contemporary challenge of creative balance within the industry. Alex MacLeod offers the analogy,

…mass production is one thing but I see it as audience. So if you just did it as one on one, that’s one thing. But if you went outside and got eight more people, then there’s something evil about his desire. And that’s absolutely wrong. Here we are having a pure, cultural experience but if I ask my neighbors to come then I’ve become shallow and egotistical and that says something vain about me as an artist.

This argument emphasizes the predicament that the artist is faced with in wanting and often needing exposure. Benefits are offered through technology but MacLeod addresses the coinciding challenges that using these tools can create. Is the thing no longer free if the artist wants to be mass-produced? Is the same piece of art somehow depreciated if eight people consume it, or eighty or eight million? Adorno thought that, “…a new variety of music had developed, the structure of which was extremely determined by its exchange-value,” and that,

“it can also become ‘popularized’ and hence lose much of its original integrity” (Held 1980,

99-100) drawing attention to MacLeod’s point on exposure. Music, and other art forms, are somehow deemed unoriginal in their integrity should they be popularized. This example proves Adorno’s predictions to be true – artist’s limitations remain throughout contemporary societies. It is impossible to create art from a place of freedom when the artist need be concerned with the popularity he or she will earn from doing so.

Mike Ryan discusses some technological tools that are popular within the music industry, “I’m seeing a lot of trends in how bands are marketed, the usage of social media, even the usage of Kickstarter, or something like it.” Kickstarter is a 69-person company, based in New York City’s Lower East Side, (Kickstarter 2013) which offers the service of

“crowd-funding.” Bands, filmmakers, artists or any creative independent can use this online company to advertise and promote a project that they aspire to create yet need the (financial)

support of their fans to pursue such an endeavor. Fans can donate money online in anticipation of the project that will be an outcome of their support. Some artists opt to offer something in return to the donor. This might include a copy of a band’s CD for a certain donation amount or concert tickets for a higher donation and so on. Rich Aucoin had mixed feelings about the use of crowd-funding sites saying,

It’s almost like a company making a product offering no refunds and saying based on our previous product; hopefully you’ll like it. I feel like that model isn’t going to last too long. You might get one record made like that. I think my problem is it kind of cheapens it? I guess some people need it, or it can’t happen…but there are other channels instead of asking people for money first before you’ve delivered something. Although this specific example was not in Adorno’s forecasts, the ideology was – consumerism and capitalism would surpass the importance of artistic liberty and freedom.

Consumers are now convinced to spend their money before a product is even created. Under these clear industry pressures, the artist has already married him or herself to the constraints of consumer expectation.

Contemporary use of technology can offer an advantage to many emerging artists opportunity to enter the market. Without this financial start, many independents would be unable to afford their creations. They seek the help of their fans in hopes that their projects will satisfy the donor. The flip-side to this benefit, as Ryan discusses, is,

The internet and social media has changed how bands must market themselves, it opens artists up to a worldwide audience.... at the same time, this world wide audience is there for EVERY artist, so it’s good in the sense that you can touch base with a kid in Australia that never would have heard you before, but at the same time, there’s 17 billion bands in every city that are all on the Internet and it’s kind of oversaturated with artists, and unfortunately... a lot of bad ones too suggesting that although technology has provided useful tools within the culture industry, those tools are available to everyone leaving their so-called advantages, questionable. For a musician who might not have their album created at all without the use of Kickstarter or

listened to without piracy, technology has arguably allowed greater access to their projects.

This, in turn, applies to the creation process, or the use of one’s thing. The art could not be released if an artist did not have money to rent a guitar, for example. Crowd funding allows for this opportunity. However, this same benefit can act as a detriment to others. A musician who already owns a guitar and has established a fan base does not necessarily gain from the saturation that might occur in the music industry as a result of technology. For these artists, their thing does not become freer or even affected. They simply have to deal with greater competition within the industry.

Another critique of the age of technology is offered by El Jones who points out,

“Awareness alone is not change…that’s a very Facebook generation…the idea that you can make innovation corporate. ‘Five ways that we can be happy’ is about social justice now?

That’s not real social justice. Social justice is supposed to be uncomfortable.” The Frankfurt

School would agree that art, and certainly art intended for social justice and messaging, should not necessarily fit into cultural conforms of comfort and expectation. Contemporary consumers are under the illusion that their participation in this type of technological component of the industry is somehow fulfilling their responsibility for cultural awareness or what Adorno might classify as high art. North American consumers have become complacent in their cultural experience and participation. We believe that by “sharing” or

“liking” a post on Facebook we have somehow fulfilled our social duty. Although the

Internet and various means of technology were not dominant examples of Adorno’s analyses of the culture industry in the mid-twentieth century, they fit into his same arguments of social

“laziness” and homogeny. This phenomenon might be through a different vehicle but is still the same action (or inaction) of succumbing to cultural norms. Whether the artist views the

Internet, piracy or any other form of technological outlet as beneficial or disadvantageous to their career, it, in both instances, affects their thing.

While all nine participants understood what Adorno meant by the culture industry, many were unfamiliar with how they were influenced by it. They may not have considered the answers to some of these questions without being asked. Ingrid Singing Grass said that her awareness was “something that [she] struggled with everyday,” while others were unsure how they were affected. Despite prior knowledge (or lack thereof) of critical theory or the culture industry, all of the Halifax artists whom I interviewed agreed that in some way, their thing was influenced. They recognized the inescapable nature that capitalism and manufactured culture had been created in contemporary North American society. However, the majority of the artists also expressed that despite this awareness, they felt as though their thing was not necessarily impacted in a negative way. Adorno would argue that any reduction in freedom would be considered negative but the artists were more reluctant to agree on this point. The majority, in some capacity, felt that their freedom of expression remained and that they were unwilling to produce something that they didn’t like in order to meet industry standards.

This observation led me to two conclusions. Firstly, Adorno was correct in his forecastings of the culture industry insofar that the artist, simply by living in a capitalist culture, is impacted by its functionings. Through means of technology, observing trends and maintaining the desire to become widely accessible, most of the artists were ready to reveal the impacts that they felt. The ability to express their thing freely, for this reason, was also disturbed. The creative nature was manipulated in a way that would be accessible for their targeted audience. This might mean adopting archetypical characters such as the case with

Mark Little, or creating wide audience participation in the instances of Rich Aucoin and

Mike Ryan. Stefanie Smiley also admits to creating jewelry pieces that might not be to her own preference, yet knows that they are in consumer demand.

However, the artists had greater difficulty answering how their thing had been stifled or influenced by the culture industry. The “sacrifices” that the interviewees made were typically welcomed or unconscious ones. The artists still felt that they maintained artistic freedom and integrity even though they lived in a manufactured culture. For example, even though Mark Little used the “nerdy” archetype as one of his characters in his comedy, he enjoyed this archetype and felt he had the freedom to make that decision. Something that must be considered is that no artist is likely to feel comfortable believing that they have “sold out” or jeopardized their thing in any way. Nonetheless, the Halifax artists who I interviewed, expressed that their sense of freedom could remain, even under the conformities of contemporary society.

I must also point out that because these individuals live within the society under question, it might be impossible to separate their feelings regarding actual experience versus what could be. That is, perhaps as a result of living in a manufactured culture where we experience limited exposure to art or high art, the artists themselves are but a representation of Adorno’s observations. They too are members of the same society as their consumers and are equal players within the industry. Perhaps what they “like” is simply an outcome of what they are told to like, or think they like. Consumer behavior indicates that North Americans find preference in the same goods as one and other. We often prefer the same things and defend that this partiality is genuine. Yet, this might be nothing more than an inevitable preference based on minimal choice. If you are given the choice between beef or chicken for

supper, you are not likely to choose fish. If the option for greater freedom does not exist, it might be impossible to imagine what you don’t have.

Contemporary “Reality” and Social Expectations

Contemporary popular culture embodies many new trends that were not relevant in Adorno’s decades. Aside from technological advancements, new types of entertainment were available for consumption. The popularity of “reality television” was a phenomena beginning in the

2000s. There is some debate about the origination of “reality television” (although it was not labeled “reality” in the beginning) but most sources, including research by the New Yorker magazine states that the early 1970s marked the start of what would become a dominating

TV program style in contemporary North American societies. Anthropologist Margaret

Mead wrote an essay in 1973, which introduced An American Family, a show about ‘the

Louds’, a middle-class California household. Mead wrote that the characters in An American

Family “…were the people they portrayed on television, ‘members of a real family.’”

Producers compressed seven months of tedium and turmoil…into twelve one-hour episodes, which constituted, in Mead’s view, ‘a new kind of art form’ – an innovation ‘as significant as the invention of drama or the novel’” (Kelefah 2011). Additional programs such as Music

Television’s (MTVs) show, The Real World would follow some twenty years later, and by the 2000s, TV networks were flooded with what was termed, “reality television.” Pioneer shows such as Survivor, Big Brother and The Amazing Race continue to garner both high ratings and therefore, reliable fan bases. Reality shows now include anything from Jersey

Shore, a program which captures the day-to-day lives of wealthy New Jersey young-adults to the Bachelor, a show designed to help singles find love. In contemporary North-American

society, there are “reality” shows about cooking, selling houses, fashion, travel, alligator hunters, redecorating, dieting, relationships and so on; if it is conceivable, there is a TV show about it.

Adorno would find, in this instance, that consumers of these shows interpret reality television to in fact be “reality.” June Deery, associate professor of communication and media at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute examines how this now-dominant media form has altered society’s conceptions of entertainment, privacy, and commercialization. Deery notes,

“Reality television provides particularly strong examples of contemporary forms of commercialization: commercialization referring to the process of turning something into a commodity in order to generate a profit…” (Deery 2014, 11) and goes on to point out that aside from simple television consumption, the hope of the industry is that the viewer will further engage in various types of print-media, online blogs and websites. These available extensions only foster greater immersion of the consumer in the show and ultimately, the effects of the industry. Horkheimer and Adorno found this process troublesome as it eliminates human autonomy and therefore, any opportunity for high art to prevail. They metaphorically stated, “…the diner must be satisfied with the menu” (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 11) highlighting the industry’s way of offering the consumer exactly what they

(think they) want. Society’s reality has come to resemble what we are shown on television rather than the other way around.

Deery expresses that reality television neither offers a positive insight on our society nor do they reflect “caring capitalism.” On her discussion of reality television, Deery says,

“Like other properties, it functions under capitalism as an investment and as a commercial prospect with an assessable market value,” (Deery 2014, p. 23) thus fulfilling the prophecy of

the ongoing nature of the culture industry. Consumers watch shows such as Jersey Shore and are led to believe that this is the aspirational goal to be met. The season four premiere of this particular reality show captured the attention of 8.8 million viewers (Reality TV World) indicating the market exposure it has acquired. The viewers feel that if they obtain the same wealth, clothes or popularity as those seen on screen that their lives will be fulfilled – that they will have “succeeded” in their society. And as capitalism would have it, this would indeed be true. These often-impossible goals fuel the culture industry, manipulating consumers into striving towards an unreachable place, or, ironically, a “reality” that is simply not real. Horkheimer and Adorno noted this phenomenon in the mid-twentieth century film industry:

Only one girl can draw the lucky ticket, only one man can win the prize, and if, mathematically, all have the same chance, yet this is so infinitesimal for each one that he or she will do best to write it off and rejoice in the other’s success, which might just as well have been his or hers, and somehow never is. (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 13)

The unattainable dream was, and still is, being sought after. Perhaps under the notion that one might “get lucky” or perhaps because consumers didn’t know what else to strive towards; the culture industry had once again convinced a society that this on-screen dream was the ultimate achievement.

One of the more popular contemporary reality shows is American Idol. A talent show, which includes filming nation-wide auditions, has been aired every year since its launch in

2002. Although the show originated in the United States, its market success spawned duplicate shows in Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and more, thus demonstrating the globalized nature of the culture industry once again. The title of the show, which includes the term “Idol,” highlights the social attitude found towards these rising stars. People plainly

idolize these contestants. Society tells them that they are important, worthy and represent what “we all want to be.” Because society offers this power to celebrities, consumers are led to believe that celebrity life symbolizes the upmost accomplishment – and in many ways, it does. The culture industry recognizes the way that everyday citizens swoon over the success and recognition felt by celebrities and therefore, continues to emphasize this social advantage.

Individuals often strive for fame and idolization, for these qualities symbolize the ultimate achievement in contemporary society. We do not value, and we certainly don’t idolize carpenters or teachers or even doctors in the ways that we idolize those who flourish in the culture industry. As the name suggests, winning this type of contest offers Idol status – one that is coveted, celebrated and of course, commodified.

The show entails thousands of singers auditioning before a panel of judges (judges are comprised of established culture industry successes such as Mariah Carey, Simon Cowell and Randy Jackson) who watch countless performances to narrow down a final “Idol.” The show offers a vision of what society is looking for in a cultural icon. Winners are deemed the ultimate triumph. Audience participation is an aspect of this particular reality show (as is the case in many contemporary programs) as a means of generating additional fan loyalty and sense of belonging. An idol adheres to specific expectations from the judges, live audience and “at-home” consumers. They are expected to fall into a particular genre of pop music, physical appearance and personalities to ensure industry demands are met. In this case, “The entertainment manufacturers know that their products will be consumed with alertness even when the customer is distraught, for each of them is a model of the huge economic machinery” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 4). Once the top five contestants have been selected, the show is immersed even more deeply into the culture industry. Contestants are

primped and groomed to ensure fashionable attire is showcased, trendy hairstyles and accessories are worn and television coverage is extended to two-hour shows rather than the original one-hour airtime. Viewers feel that they must watch even more Idol as the ante has now been increased; at least this is what network ratings reveal. To extend commodification of Idol contestants even further, the show has orchestrated a nation-wide tour featuring the top-ten finalists. Tickets are bought and sold, much like that of a sporting event or any other concert. After this, compact discs or online tracks of the artists are produced for both the finalists and the ultimate winner of the show, or, the “Idol” of the country. Until next season, that is. Much like Elvis Presley, these contestants are packaged and marketed to fit the conformities of industry standards. Most often they do not write their own music, they are told what to sing, how to sing it, how to look on stage and how to interact with fans and media sources. Many Idol winners claim that their dreams have come true; that the opportunity that has been provided to them is what has garnered them true happiness. These singers are not dishonest in this claim; they have indeed gained culture industry success.

They have acquired the lucky ticket that so many desire. Within the industry, “The effrontery of the rhetorical questions, ‘What do people want?’ lies in the fact that it is addressed – as if to reflective individuals – to those very people who are deliberately to be deprived of this individuality” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 13). It has become somewhat futile to ask society “what it wants,” for the choice no longer exists. What was found in the

1950s culture industry with singers like Elvis Presley has only intensified in contemporary societies. Even those who do not necessarily watch Idol, or any reality show, are surely to have at least seen a headline, entertainment news clip, or overheard office feedback on last night’s big show. The lack of choice and freedom has only intensified, leaving people

oblivious of what they might truly want. They simply accept what they are given – it is, after all, their only choice anyways.

Ingrid Singing Grass, like Adorno, found this evolution problematic. She asks,

“What success does an artist have? What, you become a brand and people are buying it because your name is on it not because they really like it but because it’s valuable? $20 might be nothing to some people and everything to someone else…so the value aspect really bothers me.” The manufacturing of music for millions of listeners contributes to the loss of autonomy found in creativity and artistic expression once again. This type of light art is all that the consumer had access to. Jarvis’ interpretation of Adorno argued, “Commodified light art and commodified autonomous [high] art alike offer instances of the experience of the Culture Industry from the side of production and from the side of consumption” (Jarvis

1998, 72) perpetuating the rise in light art from all angles. Audiences in the 1940s-60s, and still today, are offered a limited style of consumable art. The manufactured nature of contemporary art is arguably not artistic at all. It’s “…a whole corrupt system based in fear” says Singing Grass. Light art knows the formula which must be met for industry success to be achieved. In light music, for example, “…once the trained ear has heard the first notes of the hit song, it can guess what is coming and feel flattered when it does come” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 3). How can this lead to a free or expressive artistic representation of society?

The artist cannot create art from a place external to where he or she is, and is therefore, embedded in the industry despite talent, motivation or intention. Yet, shows such as American Idol not only deny any means of creativity but they make a direct statement of

“this is what America wants.” Janette Rawding confirms this trend though a particular

incident in her tattoo studio. She recounts, “I had a girl come in and ask me for the exact scripture that Angelina Jolie has on her shoulder, and I wouldn’t do it. Because it’s a personal thing. It’s strange to me – because that’s just another person and they got that in

Tibet!” She continues saying,

With tattooing, you have to be really careful…I take a personal responsibility. There’s no way I would have put that tattoo on that girl. I think it was a protection scripture for her and her son that she adopted. So to take that off of a photograph and then get paid to put that on somebody is something I would never do. I’m sure there’s people out there tattooing that would put a face tattoo on a 16 year old but that’s not me.

This story demonstrates how a consumer would rather copy the image off of the body of a celebrity, or “idol” rather than communicate something personal or unique. Rawding made the choice to deny the girl her request but the experience offers insight into the repetitive nature of the culture industry and how consumers buy into trends they see around them.

A further irony concerning reality television is that in many instances, it is not real at all. Most people cannot relate to the characters seen on the shows that they watch, yet, they believe that they should at least aspire to be like them. Many reality shows are both scripted and edited to satisfy both production and consumer expectations. Television producers see the ways that on-screen scenarios could potentially play out and emphasize these incidences through the “actors.” If the feeling isn’t right in certain scenes, they’ll have the reality stars reenact a scene or edit footage to their liking. In this essence, the realness is quite fake. This truth is exposed with the existence of “The Reality TV School” in New York City where actors pay tuition in exchange for professional advice on “how to be real.” The school “…is modeled after the week to week Reality experience offering similar challenges, obstacles, conflict and camaraderie building found on Reality TV shows. Students will further explore what makes for an outstanding personality on TV and will work with the camera

…simulating the ‘coverage’ concept of the shows” (The New York Reality TV School 2013).

Reality stars are idolized. The majority of consumers are not the wealthy, high-class citizens they witness on their favorite shows. Garland notices this trend in the film industry, remarking, “I think we need to get away from people being famous for no reason.” In this instance, “The paradox that art faces is twofold: first, it can arise only from and in the world as it currently is and, secondly, it must be real and exist along with everything else in society if it is to suggest that an alternative is really possible” (Cook 2008, 157). If consumers are going to take art seriously, particularly if an attempt at autonomous expression prevails, then it still must fit into an anticipated mold.

Consumers accept reality television to be real, or at the very least, a reality to strive for. The industry tells us that this is what success looks like. The consumer continues to buy into the manufactured need and perceived reality and in return, is given just another product of the same nature. Additionally, networks and producers love reality shows because there is a lesser cost in hiring the on-screen stars. They don’t have to pay “average” people the salaries of established actors, yet still garner high viewership. It’s “win win” for the networks and those responsible for production; they take “nobodies,” convince mass audiences that the actors are special and before long, these nobodies are equally as famous as the celebrities that would have cost millions of dollars to have originally hired. Considering this trend, one might conclude that certain strains of human (celebrities) are now being mass- produced. Human beings were and continue to be treated as commodified objects in the same way as tangible goods. Oscar Wilde has a saying, “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing,” (Wilde 1968, 48) which is suiting, considering the societal attitude towards even the most cherished of things – human autonomy.

While it is possible to imagine a society where mass groups of people have access to art reflective of truth, autonomy or reality, it would require a complete restructuring of the capitalist model. Early and pre-capitalist societies included a class division and art reflected that distinction. Light art fails to deal with the tension of the way that society is versus the way it could be. It does not bother to stimulate this debate or move towards something different. Light art simply satisfies the perpetual cycle of supply and demand found in capitalist societies. Light art, “…has been the shadow of autonomous art. It is the social bad conscience of serious art” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 7) disregarding the entire function that art serves to provide under Adorno’s theories. Light art defies the purpose of not maintaining a purpose. For once a purpose attempts to satisfy itself, true artistic freedom is lost. Witkin clarified, “...art is not a moral good simply because people are entertained or diverted by it or because they obtain excitement or pleasure from it, but because it sustains the subject” (Witkin 2003, 11). The purpose of art, therefore, is lost in capitalist societies.

That is not to say that it cannot be entertaining or exciting but Adorno believed art should possess these qualities and more. Art should stimulate a subjective response and allow viewers to develop personal anticipations and interpretations. Light art can now only reflect limitation, for it is from a limited society that artists must garner their inspiration.

Jarvis observed, “…many different types of music had been radically altered by capitalist economic processes” (Jarvis 1998, 99). Music had become predictable and uniform, or, light in comparison to its historical predecessor in pre-capitalist North America. While high art was intellectual and stimulating, light art was the opposite:

High art was thought provoking and unexpected while light art was uniform and predictable. The average length of the short story has to be rigidly adhered to. Even gags, effects, and jokes are calculated like the setting in which they are placed. They are the responsibility of special experts and their narrow range makes it easy for them

to be apportioned in the office. (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 2)

Casually, MacLeod comments, “We do like a good three-minute song” verifying that most people consider this length to be ideal. The three-minute song, complete with verse-chorus- verse-chorus-bridge-chorus sequence was a sure feature of any popular song. When I asked

Stefanie Smiley if she had ever deviated from the typical song structure she revealed, “Not too often. I’ve written a 4 or 5 minute song but then I thought, ‘this is getting boring’” which is likely the reaction that a typical listener would experience as well. The anticipated three- minute song could be heard a dozen times a day on local radio stations, you could read about the song in the billboard charts and magazines, you knew all of the words to this catchy hit after just one listen. It was a relatable song, one that you recognized and felt comfortable singing. The song fulfilled every musical desire you might have had prior to its listen and did not ask anything of you other than your enjoyment. It made the escape from a long day of work feel a little more genuine. The song represented the transition into that sought after leisure time – relaxation with no demands. The song would be played religiously until it ‘got boring’. But the culture industry anticipated this and urged the listener not to worry, for there would soon be dozens of other songs surely to elicit the same feelings of complacency and the satisfaction that accompanied it.

To contextualize this further, let’s look at one of Elvis Presley’s hits, Hound Dog, from 1952. The song is made up of two versus which are repeated over and over: “You ain't nothin' but a hound dog/Cryin' all the time/You ain't nothin' but a hound dog/Cryin' all the time/Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit/And you ain't no friend of mine” (Lyric Mode).

The lyrics are basic, accessible and repetitive, therefore easy to remember. They do not attempt to provoke creative thought or expressionism. Light art was designed to be marketed

to the masses and thus required these predictable lyrics. In contemporary society, pop icon

Justin Bieber acts as a comparable example to popular musicians from the mid-twentieth century. His 2012 hit, Baby took the simplification of a song to even further extremes. The chorus, “And I was like/Baby, baby, baby ooh/Like/Baby, baby, baby ohh/Like/Baby, baby, baby ohh/I thought you'd always be mine (mine)/Baby, baby, baby ohh/Like/Baby, baby, baby ohh/Like/Baby, baby, baby ohh/I thought you'd always be mine (mine)” (Lyric Mode) could be heard on every radio station, grocery store, gym and backyard party upon release.

Its popularity, like Hound Dog was just what the culture industry hoped for. The industry,

“…crushes [the musician’s] insubordination and makes them subserve the formula, which replaces the work” leaving light music a uniform and structured entity (Horkheimer and

Adorno 1944, 3-4).

Adorno recognized that the artist is constantly faced with the same dilemma. The culture industry, and consequently the artist, knows that songs like Hound Dog and Baby will be profitable, so they are continuously made. He was sympathetic to the artist in that escape from the culture industry is impossible. Therefore, trying to create external to a capitalist society can remain nothing more than a pursuit. While he would not often criticize the technique or artistic merit of pieces, he did feel that some artists dealt with their social structural dilemma better than others. The recognition of societal conformity allowed for art to at least be created from a place of truth and awareness. In defense of modern popular music and other artistic endeavors, “…some have pointed to its technical musical innovations.

Adorno argues that all these claims are falsely based” (Witkin 2003, 60) as they remain a product of society. Witkin explains that, “The modern work of art that is high in truth- value…is one that perfects the expression of alienation on its outside and which, through this

expressive negation, attains to a true understanding of the social condition…” (Witkin 2003,

87) suggesting that the artists who understand the society that they are working within is a direct link to their creations, high art or otherwise. This idea was included in the response that Mike Ryan gave when I questioned if the culture industry had stifled his thing. He responded, “I never try to adapt to what is popular at the current moment, but if everyone before me has been influenced by the cultural industry, and I’m influenced by them, then how could I not be influenced by it?” presenting two important points. The first being that some artists realize the inescapable nature of the culture industry and consequently have achieved the awareness that Adorno suggests is the best (or only remaining) approach to creativity. Secondly, Ryan points out that the cultural influence he experiences is one that may have started long before he began creating. This is supportive of Adorno’s predictions in the 1940s-1960s as similar trends were witnessed even in these decades. Yet, it also draws attention to the people who participate in the industry. Back to the chicken before the egg idiom, is the industry or the people who create (and perpetuate) the industry to blame?

Perchance they have become one and the same.

As production for light art increased, so did consumer demand. Light art flooded the market, leaving no remaining space for high art to survive. Eventually, high art no longer existed – it was unknown. While you once had to travel to the Museum of Modern Art in

New York City to see Van Gogh’s, A Starry Night, or to Florence, Italy to see

Michelangelo’s, David, the rise of capitalism allowed consumers to buy a print for $3.99 at their local museum or novelty store. Mugs, t-shirts, pencils, even cooking aprons were mass- produced featuring these famous images. Now everyone could enjoy the beauty of these creations. The images, much like Elvis, were marketable and as a result, valuable. In

discussing high art, Jarvis points out that, “It can also become ‘popularized’ and hence lose much of its original integrity” (Jarvis 1998, 100) emphasizing the lack of autonomy that accompanied the rise in capitalism. Once art becomes mass-produced it can lose some of its authenticity. Because, “…art loses its significance if it tries to create specific political or didactic effects; art should compel rather than demand a change of attitude” (Jarvis 1998, 83).

The opportunities for a compelling piece of art to merely exist in capitalist societies are weakened, however. Adorno argued that the need to fulfill market demands outweighed artistic means of captivating audiences. The mimesis was honest, just not free.

Adorno often spoke of a non-coercive means of expression. He expressed that any other measures to advocate change could only be considered hypocritical. Society cannot force or demand change, for that is the very culprit for both mid-twentieth century and contemporary conditions. Jarvis explains that Adorno believed that noncoercion could equal

“…a hope for a reconciliation of nature and culture” (Jarvis 1998, 35). “Hope” is emphasized, as this is what he asked people to acknowledge. The “idea of such a reconciliation is not simply a wish, however. It is grounded in the fact that the concepts of

‘pure’ nature and ‘pure’ culture respectively are unthinkable” (Jarvis 1998, 35). Because we cannot imagine what this “alternative” society would look like, people must simply maintain hope. El Jones jokes, “I don’t know that I’m much of an alternatives person…I’m more of a point and scream kind of person” suggesting the urgency behind the yearning for change that some desire. Yet, it is ineffective to pressure people to think, behave or create differently.

We cannot use the same process that led to mass-culture in the first place. The only starting point, in this case, is noncoercion and hope.

5. Subjectivity/Objectivity: The Decision is not Yours

Adorno suggested that the culture industry reduced societal ability to maintain a sense of subjectivity. He argued that the sameness of culture led to “objective” art, spirituality and social norms. Subjectivity refers to one’s ability, or opportunity, to think individually and freely within their social surroundings. While thoughts, feelings, beliefs and consciousness may be constantly evolving for the “subject” (individual), the ability to maintain a personally intact thought process is what was important to Adorno. For example, an artist’s interpretation of their surrounding political, economic and social environment should be one that is individually unique. Subjectivity was valuable to Adorno, as he perceived it to offer variety, freedom and truth. However, he expressed that capitalist societies stifled subjectivity and transformed thoughts and therefore, art, into objects or an objective recount of society.

Objectivity does not consider feeling, imagination or individual interpretation. It aims to express truth rather than an individual’s illusion or imaginary ideas. In the instance of art,

Adorno observed that mid-twentieth century society led to the objective nature of both the artist and the art they produced. Their works were a reflection of social truth rather than any suggestion of what alternative or imaginative truths might be. This was problematic as it prevented any choice aside from capitalism to be considered, let alone thrive.

We might look at this comparably to the gasoline-fueled automobile. If we only manufacture cars that require gasoline, then people will produce and demand more gasoline, eventually eliminating any choice or desire for an alternative means of fuel. Gradually, people stop imagining alternatives (subjectivity) and accept gasoline simply as the way that we fuel our cars (objectivity). This is dangerous for society as it prevents change and autonomy from flourishing.

While he often references individuals or even society as “subjects” themselves,

Adorno emphasized the impact that the industry had manifested in the subjectivity of these subjects, more specifically. It is important to keep these two concepts (subjects and subjectivity) separate through his analyses, as they are not interchangeable, only related. An example of both his argument and the way that he used these terms is found in Witkin’s statement, “What is done to subjectivity through the medium of popular culture is seen by

Adorno as an index of what is done to subjects within modern society. It is now fit for business” (Witkin 2003, 14). Adorno was suggesting that what had influenced the people

(the subjects) in mass society was the manufacturing of culture and ultimately the loss of autonomy and personal interpretation (subjectivity). Consumer expectations were rooted in an industry that produced objects masked as art. Much like subjects lost subjectivity, objects and even inanimate objects gained objectivity. Smith offered, “…a critique of music that points to an alternative, which transcends music as an object, a commodity, a product – indeed, as a mere ‘thing’ of escape in which one seeks through a desperate urge for closedness and mindless leisure,” (Smith, 2013) thus objectifying even intangible things.

With this process embedded in society, Adorno observed that, “…the customers of musical entertainment are themselves objects or, indeed, products of the same mechanisms which determine the production of popular music” (Smith 2013). Things that were once considered free of the characteristics that described a consumer good were now lumped into the same category as virtually every other thing/(non-thing) in North America. Biology, nature, music and identity were treated as objects – ones that could be packaged, sold and happily consumed without even a whisper of doubt. Adorno believed the process that occurred in the culture industry: mass production, reduction in choice (both consumer and

otherwise), the choices on behalf of many, was manufactured by the few and had manifested in society. He witnessed people behaving similarly to the industry; subjects looked, talked, acted and thought alike. Witkin said, Adorno “…treats the commodity as the form of all objective spirit that has detached itself from subjective spirit” (Witkin 2003, 171) stressing that because society had commodified their lives, they left no opportunity for subjectivity to remain. Objectivity had vanquished subjectivity.

The lack of variety and autonomy can be reflected in the entertainment industry in particular, Adorno observed. Consequently, in his discussion of variety, Adorno remarks on the fact that “…an apparent preparedness for something, an apparent suspense (e.g. in the act of a juggler or trapeze artist) that leaves an audience waiting, the anticipation, which ends up cheating the audience of all but the waiting…‘it’ finally turns out to be the real object of the performance” (Witkin 2003, 12). This objective outcome robs the audience of the unknown or the anticipated outcome. The waiting itself is objective, much like the aftermath. The audience knows exactly what the performer will provide. In effect, he argues, “...variet[y] stills time and he equates it with an industrial model of production emphasizing sameness, standardization and repetition” (Witkin 2003, 12). The sameness found in entertainment denies audiences from any subjective suspicions concerning what they will witness – they already know, with certainty. Mike Ryan comments, “If a Beyonce and Rhianna song played back to back on the radio, I couldn’t tell the difference between them” and Jones adds, “If we’re watching a TV show and people went on these long metaphoric monologue then we think it was crap,” pointing out that mainstream art looks and sounds alike. If we are provided anything otherwise, we deem it as “crap.” Or, revisiting MacLeod’s example of the

“six-hour movie,” this “unlike” art would not even be classified as art. This trend is dominant

in capitalist societies – the objective nature of consumer goods and production practices were predominant in the mid-twentieth century and remain in contemporary North American societies.

Much like society does not question the capitalist structure, they do not realize their depleted subjectivity. Witkin explains Adorno saying, “...values that were developed in an earlier time by a class that celebrated individualism and honored the claims of an interior world of subjectivity were now disseminated to mass audiences who lacked both individuality and inwardness and whose lives were stamped by an increasing anxiety to conform” (Witkin 2003, 137-138). The rise of the bourgeois class had, in pre-capitalist eras, translated to the increase of people who celebrated individualism. It was the beginning of seeing oneself as having an interior self (subjective self) versus solely an exterior self

(objective self). The social environment enabled this freedom of self to exist. There was room for personal discussion and ambiguities in opinions, particularly with art, to be valued.

This autonomy was desirable to other classes, and therefore, everyone wanted to share the experience of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie were viewed as superior because they had this liberty. This is the same experience within the culture industry – the masses wanted to consume and experience the same as others. As an outcome, the culture industry offered this.

Everyone could have the same thing, in an accessible way. If we mass-produced alike goods, everyone was surely to feel the same. Yet, an additional outcome meant that social masses were experiencing only the illusion of achieving bourgeois status. In exchange for the apparent benefits of freethinking or autonomy, individuals emerged into one mass, homogenous group. Under these circumstances, how could subjectivity survive? If we aim to be like someone else, we cannot also be ourselves.

Social media outlets provide a contemporary example of lost autonomy. Facebook, a social media website, was not originally designed as a commodifiable service. The intentions were based on networking. However, in recent years, with the success of

Facebook, advertisers have saturated user accounts. By 2013, “500 million people now use

Facebook and half (250 million) log into their accounts each day” (Wolfe 2013). Not only is advertising now used, it is designed in a way that caters to or assumes users’ likes, preferences and tendencies. For example, if you join a cycling group on Facebook, advertising (the culture industry) monitors these trends and begins to post cycling ads on your personal account page. Whether you like traveling, yoga, food, etc., Facebook picks up on these preferences and continues to feed your account with similar extensions of these interests. Popular music sites such as Grooveshark or iTunes also take notice of user’s partialities and offers suggestions of what the consumer might like. If you like hip-hop singer, Jay-Z’s music and have a tendency to listen to his music, the website has pop-up icons stating, “you might also like…” followed by a list of musicians similar to Jay-Z. While this “service” appears creepy or invasive to some extent, consumers continue to justify liking or enjoying these click-of-the-mouse suggestions. Much like the justifications for the culture industry itself, consumers admit that these websites do indeed enable their listening experience to be that much easier. Not only does the suggested music service eliminate endless searching for new bands, it tells listeners what is popular or trending at that time.

This, ensuring that users will know either what “they’re supposed to be listening to” or that they continue to listen to the music available on the specific website. The consumer rationalizes this process, much like they rationalize buying the mass-produced, less- expensive pair of shoes from the corporate retailer. Subjectivity, in this instance, is only

further repressed. If audiences are spoon-fed more of the same, there is no room for exploration or autonomy.

Adorno noted that it is this artistic method of identifying social tensions between freedom and conformity that had been lost. The difference between early-capitalist art and that found in the mid-twentieth century was that, “Art was unavoidably enmeshed in reality.

And just as this reality contained objective contradiction, so art was caught up in and expressed contradictions” (Held 1980, 80-81). Contemporary art no longer reflects this issue; artists themselves are objective subjects, insofar as their thoughts and interpretations have become as limited as the art they are expected to produce. For this reason, the artist cannot create from any imagined stimulation but rather only within the constricted social surroundings in which they live. Society justified producing art that mirrored a heteronomous environment. This was a continued theme throughout all consumer purchases and preferences; art was treated no differently.

The expected nuances of the capitalist society in the 1940s-1960s led Adorno to insist that, “...if knowledge is really going to be knowledge of an object, it must not be contaminated by anything subjective” (Jarvis 1998, 25). People were expected to have a single idea or analysis of an idea, product or artistic representation. The intention of art and the industry as a whole was sustained on the ideology that what you see is what you get – no surprises necessary. El Jones confirms this truth as a poet. When I asked her about whether her art was, or intended to be, intellectually challenging, she replied, “it’s supposed to be material, it’s supposed to be something you can do for high school students so they can understand. There’s no real hidden message. It’s 4 minutes to tell you what it’s like to be poor...it’s not filled with metaphors where people think, oh that’s so clever.” Stefanie Smiley

is also satisfied with the simple nature of objective art offering, “You look at it and you know what it is. There is no real deep meaning. With the jewelry, it is what it is. And with the music, I try not to complicate things,” supporting Adorno’s argument that accessible art had become and would continue to be desirable to consumers.

Contemporary music adheres to these cultural objectivities. The simplicity of lyrics does not allude to a secret undertone or unaddressed meaning. Music tends to remain straightforward and easily interpreted. An example comes from modern popular singer, Katy

Perry (whose real name is Katherine Hudson but Katy Perry sounded like more of a marketable pop-star name, hence the adjustment). Perry’s 2008 hit song I Kissed a Girl was a sensation, reaching markets both domestically and internationally. While the irreverent lyrics (written by professional songwriters, not Perry) were controversial among other singers and music critics, the song still topped the “Billboard Hot 100” chart for seven consecutive weeks, becoming the 1,000th number-one song of the rock era. The single has sold over

4,155,000 digital copies in the US alone (MTV 2013). The lyrics say exactly what the singer means:

This was never the way I planned/Not my intention/I got so brave, drink in hand/Lost my discretion/It's not what, I'm used to/Just wanna try you on/I'm curious for you/Caught my attention/I kissed a girl and I liked it/The taste of her cherry chapstick/I kissed a girl just to try it/I hope my boyfriend don't mind it/It felt so wrong/It felt so right/Don't mean I'm in love tonight/I kissed a girl and I liked it/I liked it. (Lyrics Mode) There is no reason or urge to dissect, analyze or ponder the meaning of the song. There are no nuances or underlying messages that the singer wants to express. Perry (or Hudson, rather) did not write the song, therefore could not take responsibility for any meaning, or lack thereof, regardless. This example is comparable to Elvis Presley and Justin Beiber as were described in the previous chapter, thus substantiating Adorno’s predictions that the culture

industry would only grow, to be valid. The simplicity of consumer expectations by the

1940s-1960s allowed the culture industry to remain constricted within its scope of production.

As the definitive achievement was to maintain a stable consumer base, the industry’s responsibilities were limited to a continuation of the sameness. With this assessment in mind,

Adorno knew that:

Standardization of song hits keeps the customers in line doing their thinking for them, as it were. Pseudo-individuation, for its part, keeps them in line by making them forget that what they listen to is wholly intended for them or predigested…Standardization, moreover, means the strengthening of the lasting domination of the listening public and of their conditioned reflexes. They are expected to want that to which they have become accustomed and to become enraged whenever their expectations are disappointed and fulfillment, which they regard as the customer’s inalienable right, is denied, and even if there were attempts to introduce anything really different into light music, they would be deceived from the start by virtue of economic concentration. (Smith, 2013)

Not only had subjectivity been lost, additionally, it was not missed. Consumers would much rather take comfort in knowing than experience excitement or subjective wonder about art (or life) that stepped beyond industry norms. North American consumers were historically, and continue to be, obedient audiences who are happily bound in their social margins.

Perry’s music video for her hit single is a provocative showcase of burlesque and

Moulin Rouge style dancers. It won the Kid’s Choice award in 2009. Although mainstream music videos had not saturated the market in the 1940s to 1960s, the evolution of capitalism changed the face of music and advertising even more in the contemporary culture industry.

Music videos were designed as promotional tools for musicians to showcase their songs and image. The intention was to use another tool for mass-exposure. By the early 1980s, MTV and Much Music, both North American broadcasting stations, aired music videos as their main source of programming (MTV 2013). This exposure allowed artists to capture the attention of new consumers; in Perry’s case, even kids had access to music that was deemed

risqué by many critics and presumably, parents. Many music videos in contemporary society are sexually based and include images that may or may not pass national censorship regulations depending on the country of origin. These limitations were noted by the industry and eventually surpassed through means of the Internet. Websites like Napster, which offered free music downloads and YouTube, a broadcasting site that allowed free video streaming and viewing, dealt with any restraints on mass-exposure. These technological tools enabled anyone, “artist” or not, to participate in the industry that was so significantly preferred. In contemporary societies, new independent labels further allow artists to participate in the industry and the market – competitive record companies, censorships or confined exposure do not limit them. Every roadblock is eventually overcome by the industry, constantly allowing producers and consumers alike, maximum and efficient participation.

Methods of the Culture Industry: What Sells?

As it expands, the evolution of the culture industry squeezes out any remains of subjectivity.

Each new avenue to mass-exposure requires that an equally broad accessibility remain present. Many contemporary music videos portray the star of the shoot, particularly female singers, in sexualized roles, sometimes depicting the singers themselves as consumable goods. Capitalism “…has served listening poorly by turning it into a thing, a product”

(Smith 2013). Sexualized and sultry, the industry caters to what sells in the market and what target mass audiences will continue to idolize and envy. There is little depth or cryptic messaging within the majority of music videos – they act as an extension of objective lyrics reflective of an objective society. The music video is but another layer of an already muted selection of diversity. Subjectivity is neither required nor demanded as a spoon-fed version

of objective art is much more attainable for mass consumerism. We might attribute this social expectation as limited to pop-music, however, research shows that sexualized performances or advertising are similarly experienced by classical musicians. Dame Jenni, guest conductor for the BBC Philharmonic orchestra as part of a Woman’s Hour special, tells

Hannah Ferness of the Telegraph Journal, “…female musicians such as violinist Nicola

Benedetti and trumpet player Alison Balsom have been accepted because they are marketed in a particular way” (Furness 2013). They have been deemed successful and worthy musicians as a result of their willingness to be ‘sold’ under the regulations of the culture industry. Jenni goes on to say, “…Others, who have not allowed themselves to sign up to the notion of ‘sex sells’, have been left struggling” and, “The women who seem to be most welcome are the ones who are prepared to go along with the old idea that sex sells,” (Furness

2013) revealing that capitalist tendencies are not restricted to one genre. While there are more music genres than ever before in contemporary society, the culture industry has in one way or another, been applied to them all.

By the mid-twentieth century, Adorno observed that, “…one listens to popular cultural hits without really listening at all” (Smith 2013). This was because in the objective experience of popular music, “…there is a breakdown in ‘mediating subjectivity’ or what I would call the intersubjectivity of the experience between the subject and the piece of music”

(Smith 2013). Listeners and observers alike had predisposed notions of what they would receive, thus eliminating the culture industry’s concerns with producing reflective art. In this light, “…there [was] a real problem concerning mass (social) consciousness and obedience, economic coercion and authoritarianism, the historical ‘(de)formation of the subject’ and the lack of social conditions that foster a free-flourishing, reflective subject” (Smith 2013). The

objectivity of standardization in this way results not only in a sort of, “…regression in quality of hearing…but also in the more or less stunting of experience: ‘such that the listener was docile and afraid of anything new, a sadomasochistic state of impotence’…” (Smith 2013).

The depths of muted listening capabilities coerced listeners and viewers into a constricted understanding of what music and in contemporary societies, music videos could be. As autonomous subjectivity decreased, industry standards became even more standardized.

People were disappointed, even, should they be asked to step outside of their intellectual comfort zone. El Jones admits that she experiences this same complacency within her creativity. When I asked her to describe her thing and where she drew her inspiration, she very honestly answered,

I write a lot less from inspiration…A lot of stuff I do, like 90% plus, is because I have to… commission type stuff. I was on Global as Poet Laureate and it’s ‘Pride’ tomorrow, so I have to do something. I think we like to think that writing is inspiration but you start relying on your techniques.

She elaborates by explaining, “Writing gets harder. When you first start, you have shit to say.

But now you also are aware that you said it. So now, are you saying something new when you’re aware of what you already have? As far as inspiration - it’s rare. I don’t think artists understand that.” A good dose of sexy music videos, straightforward song lyrics, reality television and painting of a horse that is meant to be a horse and nothing more, was entertainment enough.

It is difficult to break free of this social trend. Striking a balance between a subjective expression, within an objective society leads only to a vicious circle, eventually leading back to the same problem. Held explained that a living culture that, “...expresses the subjective spirit must, necessarily, apprehend its difference from an object world that lacks it.

Conversely, a culture that identifies completely with that world lacks subjective spirit cannot

sustain the spiritual element in life” (Held 1980, 162). Subjectivity requires objectivity as a vehicle for opposition to exist. The spirit of subjectivity could not flourish without a need or place for its function. Yet, it is impossible to exercise subjectivity if one is living in an objective surrounding. The objective world is the opposite of a subjective world, disallowing any room for subjectivity to thrive. Furthermore, “Once formed, objective culture (objectified spirit) yields to the demands of material life and breaks away from the subjects who created it.

It no longer serves an individual’s spiritual needs once it is identified with a material world that has ceased to recognize the spiritual” (Held 1980, 163). Along with the loss of autonomy comes the loss of human spirit and subjectivity. In essence, the spiritual needs of the subject were overwhelmed by the material world.

Consumer goods, both material and otherwise (objects), and the process required to create them, had adopted a stronger impact on human desire than any other autonomous quality. Spiritual needs were essentially exchanged for material goods. Or as MacLeod discussed earlier, we have now “…inserted culture where there used to be religious faith.”

The first line of The Culture Industry reads, “The sociological theory that the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of the last remnants of pre- capitalism, together with technological and social differentiation or specialization, have led to cultural chaos is disproved every day; for culture now impresses the same stamp on everything” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 1) suggesting that although society was once bound by religion, this is no longer the case. The culture industry offers a pre-digested, straightforward sense of guidance and belonging to everyone: iTunes tells us what music is trending so we can take comfort in joining the ultimate forces; Facebook connects us to websites that suit our apparent needs and pleasures; and advertising, radio, television, novels,

paintings, music, literature and virtually every consumer good contributes to a society rich in objects and objective thought. Yet, this exchange of spirituality for a cultural “stamp” as

Adorno said, is both rationalized and justified. There is no longer a reason to allow subjective nuances to be expressed. Illusionary or not, people have gained a sense of belonging, much like participating in a religious sanction, and are comfortable in that practice. Adorno found this troublesome, as the social transition had halted any possibility of societal evolution or change. The driving force of the industry had unknowingly achieved the ultimate social impact. So much so, the outcome of an objective world was left both unquestioned and perpetuated. As capitalism is based on the commodification process, it is without doubt that subjectivity would be lost. He witnessed this shift in the mid-twentieth century when commodification became a societal priority. Autonomy, nature, biology and now subjectivity were included in the package of goods that possessed an exchange-value.

Although Adorno admitted that escape from the culture industry is near impossible,

Cook also noted, “Mass culture is not a means of self-expression, of the self-development of the subject, but its antithesis. It appeals to the passive, regressive and self-indulgent in people” (Cook 2008, 166). The industry extracts social qualities that are not based on individuality but rather reflective of mass hegemony. The capitalist structure had created a culture that catered to people’s indulgences rather than their spirit. Self-expression and individual ideas had been overwhelmed by something much more boring and predictable.

The widespread nature of the industry led to the simultaneous widespread extermination of social subjectivity. Capitalism and commodification is, “What really makes society a social entity, what constitutes it both conceptually and in reality...the relationship of exchange which binds together virtually all the people participating in this kind of society” (Cook 2008,

191) explaining how objectivity had united mass society. This totality “...is ultimately a coercive historical process in which individuality is integrated to the requirements of the totality” (Cook 2008, 191). As a means of survival and social participation, individuals had no choice but to adhere to the constraints of the culture industry – an objective structure.

Mike Ryan shares his experience with this particular element of the industry:

I think that the only way to create in that method is to be completely free with your artistic expression. Recently, however, after doing a fairly decent sized tour opening for a high-energy Celtic-punk band who brings out a certain style of audience who likes to be energetic on the dance floor, we noticed something about our set. About 80% of it was going over amazingly well... and they were all our more upbeat songs. The other 20% were our slower ones, where the tempos dropped, the songs were more mellow, and the energy seemed to vanish from the crowd, and the bodies from the dance floor. Bands feed off the audience. Without audience at a live show, it feels as though it’s for nothing sometimes. So we decided that the next few songs we write have to be more upbeat, faster, higher tempo songs. Is this us just reading our audience and figuring out what they like and want to hear? Or is this us actually losing part of our freedom to create?

Regardless of the rationale, Adorno would argue that this action and justification is a means satisfying objective consumer expectation. Entertainment is presented in a uniform fashion, one that everyone can access and function within. The predictable and steady nature of the culture industry allows for mass society to maintain inclusion. This monotony enables everyone to become an active participant within the capitalist world – a successful one at that.

Yet, the consequences of joining these forces include relinquishing one’s spirit and subjectivity – an exchange that, by the mid-twentieth century, the masses had made.

100

6. Conclusion: the Artist’s Truth

In the mid-twentieth century, Adorno observed that North American society had transitioned into a homogenized melting pot. Society was saturated with identical copies of consumer goods and manufactured needs that resulted in an artistic representation of a similar nature.

Adorno believed that artists were once able to create from a place of purity and freedom, detached from market expectations that accompany a capitalist economy. In pre and early- capitalist eras, art was based, “…precisely by its freedom from the ends of the false universality” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 8) rather than the narrow opportunities that were made available by the 1940s-1960s. Culture became industrialized and commodified, much like every other facet of society including nature, biology and human autonomy.

Adorno predicted that the limitations experienced by artists in their creative freedoms would only fall further victim to the “culture industry.” The artist’s ability to express a truthful

“thing” in this instance, would be ever more stifled and immobilized. As art is often said to reflect life, the artists in the mid-twentieth century and contemporary societies were left without even the possibility to address social tensions through freedom of expression. They could no longer capture an idea of what their society could or ought to be, as this opportunity ceased to exist. This social reality “…begins to resemble fate” (Horkheimer and Adorno

1944, 17) and eventually becomes unchallenged.

I wanted to capture an understanding of Adorno’s observations of the culture industry and discover which ways, if any, these trends had been perpetuated (or not) in contemporary society. Additionally, I wanted to analyze which ways, if any, selected contemporary artists were influenced by the culture industry. As a means of precise research, I interviewed nine

Halifax artists of various disciplines to ask, among other questions, “does contemporary

101

society embody the same characteristics and stifled creative possibilities that were observed in the decades of Adorno’s critical theories regarding the culture industry?” Through this process, I was able to gain a more thorough understanding of the industry in a contemporary society, in addition to how the industry may or may not have influenced artists and their creative thing.

I found that many of Adorno’s observations from the mid-twentieth century remain relevant in contemporary society. From consumer complacency to lack of serious art,

Adorno’s predictions have proven true in the continuation and growth of the culture industry.

Even when the artist claimed their creativity was unaffected, each of them answered that they were aware of the demands of a capitalist economy. Although the artist may decipher these as two different thoughts, Adorno argued that so long as the awareness was present, the culture industry was effectively working. While recognition of these constraints was a notable achievement for the artist, it was not an exit point from the impacts of capitalism.

The artist was already experiencing limitations – “No one can escape from himself any more,”

(Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 13) even if they wanted to.

Adorno felt that art in the mid-twentieth century had become less serious – much like society itself. Pop songs were predictable and alike, individuals looked like clones and risks were no longer appealing to a Hollywood filmmaker’s appetite. Aside from the plethora of consumer goods that are mass-produced to meet manufactured needs, art has had no choice but to follow the path of achieving mainstream status and ultimately, industry success.

Based on feedback from selected artists in contemporary Halifax, I discovered these same trends. Many succumb to archetypes, mass accessibility, technology and generating a product which they are confident will reap market success – what choice might remain,

102

otherwise? Interviewed artists experience creative limitations in terms of what will allow them to achieve success in the culture industry; the very prediction that Adorno expressed.

Many feel “left behind” if they do not keep up with anticipated trends. They create according to audience reaction or demand and know that deviating from the norm will ultimately become just another sought after trend. For these reasons, I would argue that yes, contemporary society does embody the same stifled creative possibilities that were observed in the mid-twentieth century.

However, based on the results of the interviews, I found that there is a more elaborate explanation, sometimes challenging Adorno’s opinions. These particular nine Halifax artists, while aware of the functions of the industry, do not feel as though their purity, freedom or thing has necessarily been stifled. Influenced, perhaps, but limited or manipulated was not common feedback. As was explained in my thesis, this response and general outlook could be a result of living within a capitalist society and highlights even more so the profound influence that the industry has had. The artist feels free because he or she does not know any differently – much like the consumer feels satisfied with watching “reality” television because their choices for entertainment are limited to such shows. Yet, it would be inaccurate in terms of research to conclude that these Halifax artists expressed experiencing creative limitations. Many participants explained that even if there were “limitations,” they were welcomed ones. They too enjoyed the predictable nature and tools provided by the culture industry. Again, this strengthens Adorno’s forecasting that the capitalist economy is inescapable; yet, the responses I was provided suggest that most of these participating

Halifax artists do not feel creatively stifled.

Halifax artists face a number of tensions and contradictions throughout their

103

experiences with the culture industry. Although the desire is strong to maintain an authentic and autonomous creative expression, the artists, despite their discipline, struggled to achieve a free voice within their social environment. As outlined throughout the thesis, Adorno was not concerned with the artist, or the art that they produce in terms of technique, originality or aesthetic. Rather, he was concerned that adhering to the “rules” of capitalism stifled the artist’s ability to produce a truthful work – for their thing to be expressed freely. All creations were masked as truth insofar as they could only reflect the limitations that their surrounding society provided them. In the interviews, artists often spoke of social tensions in terms of being unique versus succumbing to convention, between individual expression and collective expectations, or, remaining to true to oneself versus feeding oneself. These are the realities that many of the artists face. Adorno was not aiming for a “better” art or a more positive future for the artist, he was emphasizing their reduced ability to mirror society through their works in any other way aside from that prescribed and expected by the culture industry.

Adorno was correct in anticipating the unavoidable nature of the industry, but the majority of interviewees, despite their industry knowledge, maintained artistic freedom in their opinion. Yet, I would have to “side” more so with Adorno as his arguments are rooted in the ability of the artist to create, not the creation itself. Contemporary society offers great variety and development in many artistic creations. It is possible that pre-capitalist eras would not have even accepted some art forms such as tattooing, spoken word or jewelry making as “art” at all. It is easy to see how the artist, in this case, feels as though more

“freedom” or at least freedom under the circumstances remains. The artist is accurate in these observations and I cannot discount their feedback should this be their experience.

104

However, when considering their simultaneous feedback of acknowledging market expectation, following pre-established ideas of “what art is” (e.g. the three and half minute song) and even deviation, the artist’s freedom, in my opinion, is stifled in the ways that

Adorno outlines.

An interesting trend and conclusive result based on interviewee’s responses was the value of balance. These Halifax artists found that maintaining a balance in fame, industry expectations, and the use of serious versus low art were all important to them. The ability to express the thing would somehow feel freer should this balance be realized. Artists such as

Mark Little and Mike Ryan noted that they would like to be considered mainstream but not so much so that their lifestyle would be compromised. Rich Aucoin mentioned that although he wanted his music to reach mass audiences, it was imperative to maintain intellectual or

“serious” lyrics. El Jones said, “What I like about spoken word is the accessibility. It’s full of marginalized people. It’s traditionally a genre about that. It challenges ideas of art. We have these very rigid ideas of art; that difficult art is good…and I think spoken word doesn’t fit those ideas…” This is interesting in juxtaposition to Adorno’s observations. She claims that society has the idea that high art is superior and that her attempt to challenge these norms is to create something more widely accessible. She claims that she “has [University] degrees to prove [she is] smart” and that her art is a way to express herself in a more popular way.

This approach again suggests balance. Alex MacLeod sums this up by explaining, “Your job here is to write the great story. Once you have the great story, then we’ll get to how it’s going to move through culture.” The emphasis is on finding balance between one’s place in contemporary society and maintaining a sense of freedom within that environment. If good work is produced, despite the social structure, it will not only sustain longevity but might be

105

considered the high art of its time. Perhaps Jones’ accessible and simple poem, for example, will be considered high art in decades to come.

Some artists expressed the ongoing dilemmas that they faced in contemporary societies. Maintaining the image of a “starving artist” somehow equated to “honesty” while achieving mass appeal translated to “selling-out.” Achieving a balance of free expression, livelihood and modest fame is nothing short of a balancing act. The melting pot of class structure and individual consumer preferences are challenging to a demographic that is expected by the masses to be a particular way, yet cannot survive by doing so. These tensions are but another example of the ways that I see the culture industry, much like

Adorno would, as imposing on the opportunity to produce from an autonomous place.

Adorno’s observations and predictions cast in the mid-twentieth century were mostly accurate based on the culture industry’s function in contemporary North American society.

In many instances, interviewees disclosed that the autonomous expression of their thing had indeed been influenced by consumer expectations and a manufactured culture. Yet, these same artists also felt free within the limits of their society – free under the circumstances, so to speak. Although their options are limited in some ways, these limitations were not always, or even often, felt in a stifling manner. For many participants, balance and self-gratification were more important than fame and success as might be suggested by the industry. My broad conclusion agrees with Adorno. Although the artist struggles with autonomy versus conformity, or maintaining genuine creativity versus economic expectations, each side of the argument or confusion remains embedded in capitalism. By considering these very contradictions, the artist has been impacted by the culture industry.

While further quantitative research would be required for conclusive statistics

106

regarding this question, the personal interactions and depth of responses offered an insightful and accurate means of answering my question. As is the case with much of critical theory, I am left with as many questions as I am with answers. The answers I have gained, however, have led to a satisfying understanding of the culture industry’s effects and the knowledge that mass social influence can be achieved. My social environment is much like Adorno described it would be. I would imagine that as this process has only increased over the past fifty-years, we are likely to observe its continuation. We might recognize our lack of freedom within this structure but cannot escape it. Should an alternative, or “could be” society emerge, it is possible that we would only experience the same limitations within it.

For this reason, Adorno has yet to be proven wrong.

107

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, Theodor W. 2001. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge.

Adorno, Theodor W. 1970. Negative Dialectics. New York: Seabury Press.

Adorno, Theodor W. 1973. Philosophy of Modern Music. New York: Seabury Press.

Aeppal, Timothy. 2006 Mar 15.“U.S. 'Birthrate' For New Factories Is Steadily Falling.” The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2006/US- Factories-Decline15mar06.htm.

Allen, Nick. 2013 Dec 28. “Hollywood Makes 2013 the Year of the Sequel.” The Telegraph Journal UK. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film- news/9770154/Hollywood-makes- 2013-the-year-of-the-sequel.html.

Avila, Michael. 2013. “What was the First Movie Sequel?” Live Science. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/32781-what-was-the-first-movie-sequel.html.

Bellafante, Ginia. 2013, May 28. “Sign of the Times | The Joylessness of Sex on TV.” New York Times. Retrieved from http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/sign-of-the-times-the- joylessness-of-sex/?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=TM_SOT_20130529.

Black Entertainment Television. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.reachingblackconsumers.com/2011/11/bet-networks-full/.

Bradford, Harry. 2011 Jul 1. “Top-Level Professionals View 40-Hour Work Week As Part-Time: Report.” The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/americans-now-view-40- hou_n_888231.html.

CBC. 2011. “The Black Keys: Selling Out in Studio Q.” Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/Q+with+Jian+Ghomeshi/Interviews/ID/2 172614583/?page=11.

Chan, N.Y. (2003). “The World Textile and Clothing Trade: Globalization versus Regionalization.” The Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Hong Kong.

108

Cook, Deborah. 2008. Theodor Adorno: Key Concepts. Stocksfield [England: Acumen Pub.

Deery, June. 2014. Mapping Commercialization in Reality Television. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved from http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/70/04706592/0470659270-1.pdf

Elvis Presley. 2013. “Official Site of the King of Rock and Roll.” Retrieved from http://www.elvis.com/about-the-king/achievements.aspx.

Elvis Presley Biography. 2012. “A Comprehensive History of Elvis Presley's Dynamic Life” Retrieved from http://biography.elvis.com.au/#sthash.JezIEiVi.P0ci8Dga.dpuf.

Furness, Hannah. 2013. “Sex Sells in Classical Music.” The Telegraph Journal. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/10111477/Sex-sells- in-classical-music-Dame-Jenni-Murray-says.html.

Held, David. 1980. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hellings, James. 2012, Oct 15. “Adorno's Aesthetic Theory and the Message in a Bottle.” TelosScope: Critical Theory of the Contemporary. Retrieved from http://www.telospress.com/adornos-aesthetic-theory-and-the-message-in-a-bottle/.

Hibbert, James. 2013, Sep 30. “'Breaking Bad' Series Finale Ratings Smash all Records.” Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved from http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/09/30/breaking-bad-series-finale-ratings/.

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 1944. Dialect of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder.

Huffpost TV. 2013 Apr 1. “The Walking Dead Ratings For Season 3 Finale Set Series Record”. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/the- walkingdead-ratings_n_2993622.html.

International Labour Organization. 1996. “Globalization Changes the Face of Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries.” Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/global/about- the-ilo/media-centre/press-releases/WCMS_008075/lang--en/index.htm.

Izundu, Chi Chi. 2013 Oct 18. “Breaking Bad creator says online piracy 'helped' show.” BBC NewsBeat. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24550832.

109

Jarvis, Simon. 1998. Adorno: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.

Kickstarter. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.kickstarter.com/hello?ref=nav.

Lyrics Mode. 2013. Retrieved from. http://www.lyricsmode.com.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, Samuel Moore, and Karl Marx. 1952. Capital. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

MTV. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.mtv.ca.

Newswise. 2013. “New Book Explores Impact of Reality Television on Entertainment Industry and Culture”. Retrieved from http://www.newswise.com/articles/new- book-by-rensselaer-professor-explores-impact-of-reality-television-on- entertainment-industry-and-culture.

Pomerantz, Dorothy. 2010. “Harry Potter' Catching Up To 'Star Wars' Franchise.” Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/29/star-wars-harry- potter-business-entertainment-movie-franchises.html.

Reality TV World. 2013. “Reality TV Television Ratings.” Retrieved from http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/newssection.php?x=%7C%7C2.

Sanneh, Kelefah. 2011. “The Rise and Ride of a Television Genre.” The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/05/09/110509crat_atlarge_sa nneh.

Smith, R.C. 2013. “On Adorno’s Critique of Popular Culture and Music.” Heathwood Press. Retrieved from http://www.heathwoodpress.com/on-adornos-critique-of- popular-culture-and-music/.

The New York Reality TV School. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.newyorkrealitytvschool.com.

Wilde, Oscar. 1968. The Picture of Dorian Gray. New York: Dell Pub. Co.

Witkin, Robert W. 2003. Adorno on Popular Culture. London: Routledge.

Wolfe, Lahle. 2013, Oct 31. “How Many People use Facebook?” Women in Business: About.Com. Retrieved from http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/facebook/a/How- Many-People-Use-Facebook.htm.

110

APPENDIX

Letter to Artist

Dear Artist,

I would like to invite you to participate as a subject in a case study to aid in the completion of my MA thesis in Political Science at Acadia University. As an active and influential member of the Nova Scotia arts community, you have been selected as an ideal candidate to help with my research. I will be conducting one-on-one interviews with each subject after which, compiled data will be used to answer the question: “does post-modern society embody the same characteristics and stifled creative possibilities that were observed in the decades of Adorno’s critical theories regarding the culture industry?” I want to know, from the perspectives of professional Halifax artists, if Theodor Adorno’s theories are still relevant in contemporary society.

To offer some context and understanding of my studies, I have provided below some background information on Adorno and the cultural industry. This is a brief overview of the theories I will be using and their means of application to the Halifax arts community. I believe that some basic knowledge will offer clarity on the questions I will be asking in your interview.

Theodor Adorno was a German philosopher/musicologist/sociologist who was known for his critical theory of society. He belonged to the Frankfurt School of Philosophy, which aims to analyze society in its totality rather than separate parts of it. I will be studying his theories of the (pop) culture industry from the 1940s to 1960s and asking whether or not these theories are still relevant or applicable in post-modern society. The Halifax arts community will act as my case study.

Adorno believed that people had created a society in which ‘high art’ could no longer exist. High art refers to art that reflects self-identity and provokes intellectual thought among viewers/listeners. He often used Beethoven or Van Gogh as examples of artists who created pieces that forced viewers to think and feel rather than experience complacency. However, the commodification of art through the capitalist structure has led to mass production, or, as defined by Adorno, the “culture industry”. This meant that artists were faced with the dilemma of creating art that reflected and represented a uniform society; a society that they too were embedded in. As we are all products of our environment, artists were only able to create and express from a constricted place. Adorno believed that artists have a ‘thing’ inside of them – a place of passion – the place that is unique to everyone that enables individual expression. The ‘thing’ wants to express the recognition of the ‘unresolved’ in society. The unresolved is identified as the way things are versus the way they could be. This is why, Adorno would argue, artists simply have to keep creating. However, the ability to express this inner ‘thing’ had become limited by the constraints of a mass, homogenized society.

111

Through his observations of both Nazi Germany and Hollywood during WWII/post WWII period, Adorno found similarities between societies. An attempted escape from the conforms of Nazism led to disappointment for Adorno as he felt similar restrictions were present in capitalist, North America. This homogenous nature was observed in the arts. We had all become alike. Adorno found that the ‘thing’ inside of artists had been stifled by market demand and mass-production. He argued that if an artist wanted to survive he/she must conform to the expectations of art consumers; therefore, left unable to create something outside of this societal norm. Even when the artist deviates from this norm, he/she finds that so many others are doing the same; they are still living within the culture industry.

Perhaps contemporary societies are different. You will help me find out!

Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. I have provided an attached consent form that further outlines procedures, details and all contact information for my University and myself.

Thank you,

Kristen Herrington MA candidate, Acadia University

112

INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR MA THESIS

Date: August, 2013 Study Title or Topic: Critical Theory, Adorno and the Culture Industry: Contemporary Application

Researcher: Kristen Herrington, MA candidate, Graduate Program in Political Science, Acadia University. Supervisor: Dr. Andrew Biro. Contact: (902) 585-1925. [email protected] Purpose of the Research: The objective of the study is to gain personal insight from artists in the Halifax, NS arts community as a means of answering my thesis question, “does post-modern society embody the same characteristics and stifled creative possibilities that were observed in the decades of Adorno’s critical theories regarding the culture industry”. I anticipate (and hope for) a broad spectrum of data/feedback and therefore, aim to speak with subjects from varying artistic backgrounds. The study is needed not only to gain a current understanding and application of critical theories but will also offer the subjects of the case study (Halifax artists) insight on their role and influence on society.

What You Will Be Asked to Do in the Research: You will be asked to answer a series of questions (maximum of 10) regarding your career as an artist in Halifax, NS. You will be provided with a list of questions prior to your participation to allow for preperation. Interviews will be one on one with myself and will be video-recorded for future reference and data compilation. Interviews will take approximately one hour to complete. Interviews will be held at a location of mutual agreement between both of us.

Risks and Discomforts: I do not foresee any risks or discomfort from your participation in the research. Benefits of the Research and Benefits to You: You will contribute to a post-modern understanding of critical theory and the influence that your art has on society. Participation in this case study will allow for the most accurate and current data on the function of the culture industry. I hope you will gain further insight on your art and realize the importance of your expression, not only at a local level but on social totality. Voluntary Participation: Your participation in the study is completely voluntary and you may refuse to answer any question or choose to stop participating at any time. Your decision not to volunteer will not influence the nature of your relationship with myself or Acadia University either now, or in the future. Withdrawal from the Study: You can stop participating in the study at any time, for any reason, if you so decide. Your decision to stop participating, or to refuse to answer particular questions, will not affect your relationship with the researcher or Acadia University. Should you decide to withdraw from the study, all data generated as a consequence of your participation will be destroyed. Please note that you have up to 14 days to withdraw. Confidentiality: All information you supply during the research will be held in confidence and, unless you specifically indicate your consent, your name will not appear in any report or publication of the research. Your data will be safely stored in a locked facility and only the researcher will have access to this information. Confidentiality will be provided to the fullest extent possible by law. If you consent to be identified in the thesis, which is a public document, please sign below

Signature Date

Questions about the Research: If you have questions about the research in general or about your 113

role in the study, please feel free to contact Kristen Herrington, MA candidate in Political Science, at the Department of Politics, 15 University Avenue Wolfville, Nova Scotia Canada. B4P 2R6, telephone (902) 542-1506 (Acadia University) or (902) 880-3842 (Kristen Herrington), or by e-mail ([email protected]). This research has been reviewed and approved for compliance with research ethics protocols by the Acadia University Research and Ethics Board and conforms to the standards of the Canadian Tri-Council Research Ethics guidelines. If you have any questions about this process, or about your rights as a participant in the study, please contact Dr. Stephen Maitzen, Chair, Research Ethics, 214 Horton Hall, Acadia University (telephone 902- 585-1407 or e-mail [email protected]).

Legal Rights and Signatures: I , consent to participate in (thesis research case study) conducted by Kristen Herrington. I have understood the nature of this project and wish to participate. I am not waiving any of my legal rights by signing this form. My signature below indicates my consent.

Signature Date Participant

Signature Date Researcher

114

Stefanie Smiley – Painter/Musician/Jewelry Maker “Giving Happiness”

“I think it’s just my care for life in general that I try to get out for other people. It goes back to happiness. I just want everything to always be happy … so I guess that’s where it all comes from”

115

Ingrid Singing Grass – Painter “Struggle”

“We’re all affected by what’s going on around us in a different way. Even if it is in a reactionary way. If I feel like something is going on around me and I react opposingly, I’m still being influenced. I think that happens more often. Even though I rebel against it philosophically, I was still raised to be like ‘success looks like this, and you must do this’. So it’s really hard to get away from the shame and the guilt at times if you’re not living up to what success is ‘supposed’ to be or feeling like I have to justify everything I put into my art”

116

Dillon Garland – Filmmaker “I want to Take You on An Adventure”

“I want to create an adventure for people…bring out the child in everybody. As a kid I was a fan of the Legends of Zelda games…I grew up in the forest”

117

Alex MacLeod – Author “Send it to the Greeks!”

“My thing is to think about literature…I’m always thinking about the great things I’ve read from people that are long dead. So I’m thinking about ancient Greeks…so for me, I am always trying to create an image or a plot or an idea that is so stripped down of everything… that we say ‘isn’t it amazing that classical literature is still relevant today?’ I’m almost trying to write something that if it could be sent back…I’m kind of doing the opposite in that I could send it to the Greeks and they would say, ‘that is it’”

118

El Jones – Poet/Spoken Word “Impolite”

“We have a social justice vocabulary but it’s a controlled one. That’s the kind of thing you see on Ted talks and these wonderful, inspirational things. When you say men get raped in prison, people don’t go there – it’s impolite”

119

Rich Aucoin – Musician “Positive Energy”

“It is a positive show … so I could say, yes, this is my view of a utopian world! Haha. I think art doesn’t necessarily need to be so much happy as thought provoking. But yes, now it’s about bringing out a lot of emotions of both happiness and thankfulness and kind of a mindfulness of the opportunity we are fortunate to have. So those are the kinds of things that I’m hoping I’m provoking in people’s minds. Whether it’s a conscious one or just a general in their drunken haze feeling of euphoria and energy and positive mentality that the show is conceived and conducted in” 120

Mark Little – Actor/Comedian “Crazy Kid”

“Even if there was no audience and it was just me and a friend doing improv, that was plenty. Just to do it was incredible. But I was crazy about it. I’d try to start scenes…looking back, that kid was crazy… But that was me before I understood you can do this regularly”

121

Janette Rawding – Tattoo Artist “Tracking Time”

“It’s kind of a weird feeling, honestly. It’s like, I’m not much of a reader but I can imagine that’s what it would be like for a person that could pick up a book and just become completely engulfed in their book and just lose themselves in their imagination. That person could be there for hours and hours and hours and just be off in their own world…”

122

Mike Ryan – Musician “Sunset”

“I’ve always felt a swell of warmth, or ideas or whatever you want to call it, inside of me whenever something happened. I’ve always had a pen and paper at my side jotting down what I felt. Every time I saw something pretty, if I watched a good sports game, if I had my heart broke, if a cat died, if anything that would cause emotion in a person happened... good or bad... that was what brought it out in me. If the time comes when I see a sunset and all I see is a sunset, I guess that means it’s time to stop”

123