Professional Documents
Culture Documents
proposed by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, it may be seen to have, for the
most part, dissolved into the popular culture over the past 40 years. Adorno and
Horkheimer argue that the modern capitalist social structure of western society has
given birth to a ‘culture industry’, wherein popular culture is created through the
capitalist need to mass-produce and commodify cultural goods. The works of this
culture industry stand in necessary opposition to the high arts. Over the past 40 years,
the focus of the visual arts has shifted away from the aesthetic and onto characteristics
that may be seen as belonging to the culture industry. Specifically, the visual arts have
come to embody two such elements. Firstly, they have begun to concern themselves
with conceptual subject matter rather than aesthetic problems of form. Secondly, they
have begun to appeal to basic, instant pleasures in an attempt to penetrate the mass
market. Such elements are apparent in the works of several key artists who may be
seen to have changed the trajectory of the high arts since 1970.
and stands in direct contrast to high art. High art is necessarily autonomous, and
therefore characterised by purposelessness. The only way high art can maintain its
existence is by denying the consumer society in which it exists. Works of high art
must therefore disassociate itself from any social purpose by concerning themselves
with the aesthetic alone. However, high art remains constantly under threat from the
encroachment of mass culture. They claim that, “Culture now impresses the same
stamp on everything. Films, radios and magazines make a system which is uniform as
a whole and in every part,” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1947, 122). This uniformity
determined by the degree to which they fulfil the desires of the masses. Further to
“No independent thinking must be expected from the audience, the product
immediately preceding situation and never from the idea as a whole.” (Adorno
discourage serious reflection on the part of the audience. Rather, they resort to base
pleasures in order to entertain and pacify the masses. They argue that, “Fun is a
medicinal bath. The pleasure industry never fails to prescribe it. It makes laughter the
pleasure and gratification. Art must retain its critical power, however it cannot do this
remain free from the culture industry, art must refuse to concern itself with social
concepts. Thus, there are two ways art may fall into the realm of the culture industry.
Firstly, it may concern itself with the needs of the masses, appealing to instant
pleasures rather than promoting serious reflection. Secondly, it may lose absolute
form, and rather focusing on the concept behind the work, art loses its autonomy and
fails to offer any true alternative to present existence. However, with the rise of
postmodernism in recent times art has begun to dissolve absolutely into the culture
industry. “This work does not bracket art for formal or perceptual experiment but
rather seeks out its affiliations with other practices (in the culture industry and
elsewhere),” (Foster, 1985, in Harrison and Wood [Eds.], 1992, 1066). Although such
art has been prominent from the 1960’s, a more recent example is the work of Joseph
Kosuth. Often cited as one of the leading exponents of conceptual art, Kosuth’s work
Furthermore, Kosuth has written on the function of art as the expression of ideas
(Kosuth, 1969). This understanding of art is embodied in his work ‘One and Three
Chairs’ (1965). The work was composed of a visual representation of a chair, a verbal
description of a chair, and a physical chair itself. The purpose of this work is to
actively pose a philosophic question to the spectator about how we receive concepts
rational reflection, but not of the kind that Adorno and Horkheimer promote. In
work fails to become autonomous and therefore fails to offer aesthetic ‘truth’.
Another notable example of art aligning itself with the expression of concepts
rather than the aesthetic is the work of Hans Haacke. In his piece ‘MoMA Poll’
survey and placing it in one of two transparent boxes corresponding to their answer to
a political question. In this work, Haacke dispenses with the aesthetic absolutely, with
the work existing as the embodiment of a socio-political concept. As Hobbes
more, while elaborate posturings and internal inconsistencies of the art world
are taken to task, unemotionally examined, and, for the first time, realistically
In ‘MoMA Poll’ Haacke completely departs from the notion of autonomous art.
Although it encourages rational reflection, the work exists only in regard to its social
context and absolutely refuses the aesthetic. This stands in contrast to Adorno and
Horkheimer’s notion of high art, and necessarily dissolves into the culture industry
that it relies upon for existence rather than striving for the sublime.
As a more recent example, the work of Gerhard Richter also embodies social
concepts rather than aspiring towards the aesthetic. In his collection of works
violent German left-wing protest group (The Red Army Faction) by painting them,
and then blurring the pictures. Richter represents history by effectively breaking the
(Buchloh, 1989). In this way, he uses his work to challenge accepted social views of
history. His work therefore loses its autonomy, thus dissolving into the culture
industry. However, in another way, Richter may be seen to challenge the role of the
artist as a social and historical commentator. With the blur, he references the history
photography, with this retreat eventually leading to the modernist notion of aesthetics
and autonomy (Buchloh, 1989). Richter seems to be suggesting here that painting is,
indeed, inadequate for the representation of history. It is not the artist’s place to
represent social ‘truths’ in the modern age, and the artist cannot offer any true insight
into history. In this way, Richter may be seen as criticising art that concerns itself
with social statements and concepts, although paradoxically engaging in the same
practice he appears to discourage. Even so, Richter’s works fail to exist autonomously
Recently, several artists have gone beyond merely rejecting the autonomy of
art and have actively embraced characteristics of the culture industry in an attempt to
appeal to the mass market. Perhaps the best examples of art appealing to the popular
culture in this way come from the so-called ‘Young British Artists’ of the 1990’s.
Indeed, Julian Stallabrass (1999) identifies this movement as having finally dissolved
the barriers between elitist art and mass culture through its extensive media coverage.
a, “visually accessible and spectacular form,” (Stallabrass, 1999, 4), coupled with its
“eschewal of all ideology, its principal rejection of all principal, [and] its strong
inclination to make no comment,” (Stallabrass, 1999, 128). The art of the YBA
rather focussing on the accessibility of the work to the mass culture. It cannot,
therefore, be seen as high art if viewed through a filter of Frankfurt School critical
a full lifecycle, with maggots and flies feeding on a rotting cows head inside a glass
case. The work is about mortality, and is blatantly literal. Rather than representing the
themes that he confronts, Hirst simply actualises them within the gallery. “The
allegory collapses into the literal…whatever empowering ‘truth’ this art could speak
(Ray, 2004, 129). The work thus denies the audience any chance for serious reflection
or thought. It is what it presents itself as, without hiding anything behind it or leaving
space for individual interpretation. In doing so, it seeks only to amaze by resorting to
“In Hirst’s piece…all reflective links to daily practice are suppressed. In it, it
functions just like any piece of popular entertainment. The choice posed,
indifference just the same: when the spectator finally gets bored, he or she
Hirst’s work does not require anything on the audience except interest, appealing to
The work of artist Jeff Koons functions in a similar way. Koons has stated that
his goal is to become, “as big an art star as possible,” and that he believes the art
world must, “use every means necessary to seduce and manipulate the audience,”
(Mamiya, 1992, 167). The motivation behind Koons’ art is therefore the attempt the
particular, his work ‘Puppy’ (1992) may be seen as bearing the hallmarks of the
culture industry. The work is a 12-metre tall sculpture of a West Highland Terrier
puppy constructed from steel and covered entirely in flowers, and has been described
by critics as undeniably ‘kitsch’ (Mamiva, 1992). Kitsch is used, in this sense, with
regard to its definition by Clement Greenberg. Greenberg (1939) defined kitsch as the
inferior cultural works produced from an emerging mass culture in modern society
remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the
life of our times. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its customers except
their money – not even their time.” (Greenberg, 1939 in O’Brian ed., 1986,
10).
Horkheimer’s classification of the culture industry, one central principal remains the
same: that products of mass culture are defined by their refusal to inspire serious
rational reflection or offer anything of true aesthetic value. Koons’ ‘Puppy’ is nothing
more than a dazzling spectacle inspiring fleeting joy. The spectator enjoys the work
without having any rational insight into it, just as products of the culture industry
appeal to basic instinct rather than true, informed aesthetic appreciation. Furthermore,
Koons pulls the subject (a puppy) and materials (flowers) directly from the values of
way and leaves no room for individual reflection or interpretation. This stands in
contrast to high art which, through its manipulation of form and the true aesthetic,
“engage with essences and metaphysics and, conservative in their compliance with
(Batchelor & Freedman, 1997, 54). By departing with form and the aesthetic, and
artists such a Hirst and Koons have effectively resorted to base sensations, pacifying
their audience and sharply opposing high art.
Over the past 40 years, there has been a strong inclination in art to reject the
aesthetic and ideas of form and beauty. Instead, the focus has been on the
taking this path, art has refused to remain autonomous and, according to Adorno and
Horkheimer’s critical theory, dissolved into the culture industry. The line between
high art and popular culture is now significantly blurred. Furthermore, many artists
have embraced the culture industry, creating works that embody and utilise the
masses.
References
Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Contimuum,
1947.
67.
Bowman, R. “Words and Images: A Persistent Paradox.” Art Journal 45.4 (1985):
335-343.
– 110.
Forster, H. “Subversive Signs.” Art in Theory: 1900-1990. Eds. Charles Harrison &
and Criticism. Ed. John O’Brian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
5-23.
Mamiya, C. Pop Art and Consumer Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.
Ray, G. “Little Glass House of Horrors: High Art Lite, The Culture Industry and
Stallabrass, J. High Art Lite: British Art in the 1990s. London: Verso, 1999.