Get these thoughts out while they make sense to me (Adorno)
So I think I agree with Adorno in that culture is hegemonic and totalitarian beyond the simplistic structures outlined in Marx. Culture is more than class, language, whatever, but also encompasses those things. Interpreted classically as modes of production of commodities I think what we deal with on the level of base or superstructure in Marx are the modes of production of social reality and that would, of course, include things like art, language, commodities, etc.
I suppose the problem I have with Adorno is in the notion of what, exactly, constitutes "autonomous art." I have some serious problems with the idea that some art (or, perhaps, artifacts of culture) are more or less authentic than other expressions. I don't understand what he means by "spirit of art" but I can assume he's referring to the temporary nature of what would make art autonomous. Street art, as it was for Keith Herring as a young man, was ultimately a good expression of "autonomous art"... And, in that sense, the "spirit" of the art would lend itself to emancipatory consideration. But as Herring (and, later, to some extent, Basquiat) were more often featured in modern art museums, the "spirit" of the art becomes less emancipatory and, ultimately, begins contributing to hegemonic culture.
So, I guess that's the easy part. Here, in the present, I can't go back in time to experience the autonomous-ness of that art. I can appreciate it's "authenticity" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) as an artifact of a previous time, but the fact remains that, as Adorno might see it, Herring and Basquiat are crap now.
But really, though, Adorno was an elitist. I like his ideas, agree with them to some extend, but the fact that ALL mass-produced art (from Beethovan to The Vagina Monologues) is hegemonic is ultimately nonsensical. What kind of emancipatory action can come of art that must be interpreted by some kind of Art Shaman, only to be regarded as inauthentic (thus totalitarian/hegemonic) once this "translation" occurs?! Beyond that, how can this emancipation really set free those who are bound by geography, class, and other social mechanisms?
In sum, I agree that "good" art is inherently liberating... but the collection of facts and ideas that give "good" art its liberating quality is, ultimately, the more uniquely freeing object.
I suppose the problem I have with Adorno is in the notion of what, exactly, constitutes "autonomous art." I have some serious problems with the idea that some art (or, perhaps, artifacts of culture) are more or less authentic than other expressions. I don't understand what he means by "spirit of art" but I can assume he's referring to the temporary nature of what would make art autonomous. Street art, as it was for Keith Herring as a young man, was ultimately a good expression of "autonomous art"... And, in that sense, the "spirit" of the art would lend itself to emancipatory consideration. But as Herring (and, later, to some extent, Basquiat) were more often featured in modern art museums, the "spirit" of the art becomes less emancipatory and, ultimately, begins contributing to hegemonic culture.
So, I guess that's the easy part. Here, in the present, I can't go back in time to experience the autonomous-ness of that art. I can appreciate it's "authenticity" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) as an artifact of a previous time, but the fact remains that, as Adorno might see it, Herring and Basquiat are crap now.
But really, though, Adorno was an elitist. I like his ideas, agree with them to some extend, but the fact that ALL mass-produced art (from Beethovan to The Vagina Monologues) is hegemonic is ultimately nonsensical. What kind of emancipatory action can come of art that must be interpreted by some kind of Art Shaman, only to be regarded as inauthentic (thus totalitarian/hegemonic) once this "translation" occurs?! Beyond that, how can this emancipation really set free those who are bound by geography, class, and other social mechanisms?
In sum, I agree that "good" art is inherently liberating... but the collection of facts and ideas that give "good" art its liberating quality is, ultimately, the more uniquely freeing object.