Choon of the Day
- Thread starter Corpsey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- black frank zappa contrarian posturing corp$ey corpsey's visceral hatred of greeks craner's on the piss again craner's playground craner's sex dungeon craner's visceral hatred of the quai creepy dutch pedos david davis (disambiguation) euphoria fuck a blog dawg cos on day we gon meet garridge gold coins gold rings heavenly belters i don't like helmut newton. i got fingered by simon reynolds i hate this thread indiana jones and the temple of choon sadmanbarty's self-proclaimed cool club say no to pop sax sexy aphexy corpsey spluttering objections still got your name tattooed on my back tattoo my fucking eyebrows that fucking tea tune keeps autoplaying the beach orgy boys wistful
- Status
luka
Well-known member
woops
is not like other people
just one guy i think
luka
Well-known member
Adorno and Horkheimer's bleak conclusion is that there is now no distinction within monopoly capitalism between aesthetic and commodity production (or what they call the relationship between the "logic of the work and that of the social system") because the economic imperatives of the latter are reproduced in every new form to which the culture industry introduces the public (Adorno and Horkheimer 121). Any deviation from the general productive logic of the culture industry, like the individual imprimatur of virtuoso style, is explained away as a "calculated mutation" from the output of the system that only becomes meaningful as a structural variation, and a layer of "experts" and cultural commentators are employed to undertake this ideological function (Adorno and Horkheimer 129). Increasingly, the producers themselves fulfil the role of expert by creating an artificial style for each product that highlights its novelty while removing elements of possible significance that would threaten the integrity of the system itself. Indeed, Adorno and Horkheimer focus upon this recuperation of difference within the monological structures of the culture industry by drawing a distinction between "technique," which aims to diminish the tension between the product and our perception of everyday life, and the "style" of the politically engaged artist:
A style might be called artificial which is imposed from without on the refractory impulses of a form. But in the culture industry every element of the subject matter has its origin in the same apparatus as that jargon whose stamp it bears. The quarrels in which the artistic experts become involved with sponsor and censor about a lie going beyond the bounds of credibility are evidence not so much of an inner aesthetic tension as of a divergence of interests. The reputation of the specialist, in which a last remnant of objective independence sometimes finds refuge, conflicts with the business politics of the Church, or the concern with manufacturing the cultural
commodity. But the thing itself has become essentially objectified and made viable before the established authorities began to argue about it.... Hence the style of the culture industry, which no longer has to test itself against any refractory material, is also the negation of style. The reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter, the achievement of which alone gives essential, meaningful content to style, is futile because there has ceased to be the slightest tension between opposite poles: these concordant extremes are dismally identical; the general can replace the particular, and vice versa (Adorno and Horkheimer 129-30).
It would be easy to conclude from passages like this that avant-garde styles of writing which foreground the production of subject positions within the discursive configuration of a text are necessarily subversive of established political order because they forestall the "reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter" that underpins the systematic totality of the culture industry. This belief in the inherently subversive effect of textual polyphony and difference underscores Easthope's reading of modernist poetics. But the matter is not so simple. For as Adorno and Horkenheimer demonstrate, incommensurable or "refractory material" is always and everywhere implicated in a dialectical relationship with the "total process of production" that it opposes (Adorno and Horkheimer xii). One of their more melancholy insights is that the culture industry actively produces different images and styles in order to reassert the absolute uniformity of its own authority. Novelty is all around us, from the "standardized jazz improvisation to the exceptional film star whose hair curls over her eye to demonstrate her originality" but what is individual here "is no more than the generality's power to stamp the accidental detail so firmly that it is accepted as such" (Adorno and Horkheimer 154). The "accidental" or incommensurable detail is "accepted as such" because it can be endlessly reproduced as a "house style" or "lifestyle practice" and, paradoxically, it is the capacity of the culture industry to transform difference into a set of uniform discriminations that allows a social body to be demarcated according to the sectional logic of politicians, advertisers and marketing executives. Fredric Jameson makes exactly the same point when he observes that what has happened in the contemporary or postmodern phase of monopoly capitalism is "that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of producing ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation" (Jameson 4-5). It is therefore inadequate to proclaim the ineluctable emancipatory promise of incommensurable or refractory material because "capitalism also produces difference or differentiation as a function of its own internal logic" (Jameson 406).
A style might be called artificial which is imposed from without on the refractory impulses of a form. But in the culture industry every element of the subject matter has its origin in the same apparatus as that jargon whose stamp it bears. The quarrels in which the artistic experts become involved with sponsor and censor about a lie going beyond the bounds of credibility are evidence not so much of an inner aesthetic tension as of a divergence of interests. The reputation of the specialist, in which a last remnant of objective independence sometimes finds refuge, conflicts with the business politics of the Church, or the concern with manufacturing the cultural
commodity. But the thing itself has become essentially objectified and made viable before the established authorities began to argue about it.... Hence the style of the culture industry, which no longer has to test itself against any refractory material, is also the negation of style. The reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter, the achievement of which alone gives essential, meaningful content to style, is futile because there has ceased to be the slightest tension between opposite poles: these concordant extremes are dismally identical; the general can replace the particular, and vice versa (Adorno and Horkheimer 129-30).
It would be easy to conclude from passages like this that avant-garde styles of writing which foreground the production of subject positions within the discursive configuration of a text are necessarily subversive of established political order because they forestall the "reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter" that underpins the systematic totality of the culture industry. This belief in the inherently subversive effect of textual polyphony and difference underscores Easthope's reading of modernist poetics. But the matter is not so simple. For as Adorno and Horkenheimer demonstrate, incommensurable or "refractory material" is always and everywhere implicated in a dialectical relationship with the "total process of production" that it opposes (Adorno and Horkheimer xii). One of their more melancholy insights is that the culture industry actively produces different images and styles in order to reassert the absolute uniformity of its own authority. Novelty is all around us, from the "standardized jazz improvisation to the exceptional film star whose hair curls over her eye to demonstrate her originality" but what is individual here "is no more than the generality's power to stamp the accidental detail so firmly that it is accepted as such" (Adorno and Horkheimer 154). The "accidental" or incommensurable detail is "accepted as such" because it can be endlessly reproduced as a "house style" or "lifestyle practice" and, paradoxically, it is the capacity of the culture industry to transform difference into a set of uniform discriminations that allows a social body to be demarcated according to the sectional logic of politicians, advertisers and marketing executives. Fredric Jameson makes exactly the same point when he observes that what has happened in the contemporary or postmodern phase of monopoly capitalism is "that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of producing ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation" (Jameson 4-5). It is therefore inadequate to proclaim the ineluctable emancipatory promise of incommensurable or refractory material because "capitalism also produces difference or differentiation as a function of its own internal logic" (Jameson 406).
luka
Well-known member
Adorno and Horkheimer's bleak conclusion is that there is now no distinction within monopoly capitalism between aesthetic and commodity production (or what they call the relationship between the "logic of the work and that of the social system") because the economic imperatives of the latter are reproduced in every new form to which the culture industry introduces the public (Adorno and Horkheimer 121). Any deviation from the general productive logic of the culture industry, like the individual imprimatur of virtuoso style, is explained away as a "calculated mutation" from the output of the system that only becomes meaningful as a structural variation, and a layer of "experts" and cultural commentators are employed to undertake this ideological function (Adorno and Horkheimer 129). Increasingly, the producers themselves fulfil the role of expert by creating an artificial style for each product that highlights its novelty while removing elements of possible significance that would threaten the integrity of the system itself. Indeed, Adorno and Horkheimer focus upon this recuperation of difference within the monological structures of the culture industry by drawing a distinction between "technique," which aims to diminish the tension between the product and our perception of everyday life, and the "style" of the politically engaged artist:
A style might be called artificial which is imposed from without on the refractory impulses of a form. But in the culture industry every element of the subject matter has its origin in the same apparatus as that jargon whose stamp it bears. The quarrels in which the artistic experts become involved with sponsor and censor about a lie going beyond the bounds of credibility are evidence not so much of an inner aesthetic tension as of a divergence of interests. The reputation of the specialist, in which a last remnant of objective independence sometimes finds refuge, conflicts with the business politics of the Church, or the concern with manufacturing the cultural
commodity. But the thing itself has become essentially objectified and made viable before the established authorities began to argue about it.... Hence the style of the culture industry, which no longer has to test itself against any refractory material, is also the negation of style. The reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter, the achievement of which alone gives essential, meaningful content to style, is futile because there has ceased to be the slightest tension between opposite poles: these concordant extremes are dismally identical; the general can replace the particular, and vice versa (Adorno and Horkheimer 129-30).
It would be easy to conclude from passages like this that avant-garde styles of writing which foreground the production of subject positions within the discursive configuration of a text are necessarily subversive of established political order because they forestall the "reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter" that underpins the systematic totality of the culture industry. This belief in the inherently subversive effect of textual polyphony and difference underscores Easthope's reading of modernist poetics. But the matter is not so simple. For as Adorno and Horkenheimer demonstrate, incommensurable or "refractory material" is always and everywhere implicated in a dialectical relationship with the "total process of production" that it opposes (Adorno and Horkheimer xii). One of their more melancholy insights is that the culture industry actively produces different images and styles in order to reassert the absolute uniformity of its own authority. Novelty is all around us, from the "standardized jazz improvisation to the exceptional film star whose hair curls over her eye to demonstrate her originality" but what is individual here "is no more than the generality's power to stamp the accidental detail so firmly that it is accepted as such" (Adorno and Horkheimer 154). The "accidental" or incommensurable detail is "accepted as such" because it can be endlessly reproduced as a "house style" or "lifestyle practice" and, paradoxically, it is the capacity of the culture industry to transform difference into a set of uniform discriminations that allows a social body to be demarcated according to the sectional logic of politicians, advertisers and marketing executives. Fredric Jameson makes exactly the same point when he observes that what has happened in the contemporary or postmodern phase of monopoly capitalism is "that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of producing ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation" (Jameson 4-5). It is therefore inadequate to proclaim the ineluctable emancipatory promise of incommensurable or refractory material because "capitalism also produces difference or differentiation as a function of its own internal logic" (Jameson 406).
A style might be called artificial which is imposed from without on the refractory impulses of a form. But in the culture industry every element of the subject matter has its origin in the same apparatus as that jargon whose stamp it bears. The quarrels in which the artistic experts become involved with sponsor and censor about a lie going beyond the bounds of credibility are evidence not so much of an inner aesthetic tension as of a divergence of interests. The reputation of the specialist, in which a last remnant of objective independence sometimes finds refuge, conflicts with the business politics of the Church, or the concern with manufacturing the cultural
commodity. But the thing itself has become essentially objectified and made viable before the established authorities began to argue about it.... Hence the style of the culture industry, which no longer has to test itself against any refractory material, is also the negation of style. The reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter, the achievement of which alone gives essential, meaningful content to style, is futile because there has ceased to be the slightest tension between opposite poles: these concordant extremes are dismally identical; the general can replace the particular, and vice versa (Adorno and Horkheimer 129-30).
It would be easy to conclude from passages like this that avant-garde styles of writing which foreground the production of subject positions within the discursive configuration of a text are necessarily subversive of established political order because they forestall the "reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter" that underpins the systematic totality of the culture industry. This belief in the inherently subversive effect of textual polyphony and difference underscores Easthope's reading of modernist poetics. But the matter is not so simple. For as Adorno and Horkenheimer demonstrate, incommensurable or "refractory material" is always and everywhere implicated in a dialectical relationship with the "total process of production" that it opposes (Adorno and Horkheimer xii). One of their more melancholy insights is that the culture industry actively produces different images and styles in order to reassert the absolute uniformity of its own authority. Novelty is all around us, from the "standardized jazz improvisation to the exceptional film star whose hair curls over her eye to demonstrate her originality" but what is individual here "is no more than the generality's power to stamp the accidental detail so firmly that it is accepted as such" (Adorno and Horkheimer 154). The "accidental" or incommensurable detail is "accepted as such" because it can be endlessly reproduced as a "house style" or "lifestyle practice" and, paradoxically, it is the capacity of the culture industry to transform difference into a set of uniform discriminations that allows a social body to be demarcated according to the sectional logic of politicians, advertisers and marketing executives. Fredric Jameson makes exactly the same point when he observes that what has happened in the contemporary or postmodern phase of monopoly capitalism is "that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of producing ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation" (Jameson 4-5). It is therefore inadequate to proclaim the ineluctable emancipatory promise of incommensurable or refractory material because "capitalism also produces difference or differentiation as a function of its own internal logic" (Jameson 406).
luka
Well-known member
Adorno and Horkheimer's bleak conclusion is that there is now no distinction within monopoly capitalism between aesthetic and commodity production (or what they call the relationship between the "logic of the work and that of the social system") because the economic imperatives of the latter are reproduced in every new form to which the culture industry introduces the public (Adorno and Horkheimer 121). Any deviation from the general productive logic of the culture industry, like the individual imprimatur of virtuoso style, is explained away as a "calculated mutation" from the output of the system that only becomes meaningful as a structural variation, and a layer of "experts" and cultural commentators are employed to undertake this ideological function (Adorno and Horkheimer 129). Increasingly, the producers themselves fulfil the role of expert by creating an artificial style for each product that highlights its novelty while removing elements of possible significance that would threaten the integrity of the system itself. Indeed, Adorno and Horkheimer focus upon this recuperation of difference within the monological structures of the culture industry by drawing a distinction between "technique," which aims to diminish the tension between the product and our perception of everyday life, and the "style" of the politically engaged artist:
A style might be called artificial which is imposed from without on the refractory impulses of a form. But in the culture industry every element of the subject matter has its origin in the same apparatus as that jargon whose stamp it bears. The quarrels in which the artistic experts become involved with sponsor and censor about a lie going beyond the bounds of credibility are evidence not so much of an inner aesthetic tension as of a divergence of interests. The reputation of the specialist, in which a last remnant of objective independence sometimes finds refuge, conflicts with the business politics of the Church, or the concern with manufacturing the cultural
commodity. But the thing itself has become essentially objectified and made viable before the established authorities began to argue about it.... Hence the style of the culture industry, which no longer has to test itself against any refractory material, is also the negation of style. The reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter, the achievement of which alone gives essential, meaningful content to style, is futile because there has ceased to be the slightest tension between opposite poles: these concordant extremes are dismally identical; the general can replace the particular, and vice versa (Adorno and Horkheimer 129-30).
It would be easy to conclude from passages like this that avant-garde styles of writing which foreground the production of subject positions within the discursive configuration of a text are necessarily subversive of established political order because they forestall the "reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter" that underpins the systematic totality of the culture industry. This belief in the inherently subversive effect of textual polyphony and difference underscores Easthope's reading of modernist poetics. But the matter is not so simple. For as Adorno and Horkenheimer demonstrate, incommensurable or "refractory material" is always and everywhere implicated in a dialectical relationship with the "total process of production" that it opposes (Adorno and Horkheimer xii). One of their more melancholy insights is that the culture industry actively produces different images and styles in order to reassert the absolute uniformity of its own authority. Novelty is all around us, from the "standardized jazz improvisation to the exceptional film star whose hair curls over her eye to demonstrate her originality" but what is individual here "is no more than the generality's power to stamp the accidental detail so firmly that it is accepted as such" (Adorno and Horkheimer 154). The "accidental" or incommensurable detail is "accepted as such" because it can be endlessly reproduced as a "house style" or "lifestyle practice" and, paradoxically, it is the capacity of the culture industry to transform difference into a set of uniform discriminations that allows a social body to be demarcated according to the sectional logic of politicians, advertisers and marketing executives. Fredric Jameson makes exactly the same point when he observes that what has happened in the contemporary or postmodern phase of monopoly capitalism is "that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of producing ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation" (Jameson 4-5). It is therefore inadequate to proclaim the ineluctable emancipatory promise of incommensurable or refractory material because "capitalism also produces difference or differentiation as a function of its own internal logic" (Jameson 406).
A style might be called artificial which is imposed from without on the refractory impulses of a form. But in the culture industry every element of the subject matter has its origin in the same apparatus as that jargon whose stamp it bears. The quarrels in which the artistic experts become involved with sponsor and censor about a lie going beyond the bounds of credibility are evidence not so much of an inner aesthetic tension as of a divergence of interests. The reputation of the specialist, in which a last remnant of objective independence sometimes finds refuge, conflicts with the business politics of the Church, or the concern with manufacturing the cultural
commodity. But the thing itself has become essentially objectified and made viable before the established authorities began to argue about it.... Hence the style of the culture industry, which no longer has to test itself against any refractory material, is also the negation of style. The reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter, the achievement of which alone gives essential, meaningful content to style, is futile because there has ceased to be the slightest tension between opposite poles: these concordant extremes are dismally identical; the general can replace the particular, and vice versa (Adorno and Horkheimer 129-30).
It would be easy to conclude from passages like this that avant-garde styles of writing which foreground the production of subject positions within the discursive configuration of a text are necessarily subversive of established political order because they forestall the "reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands of the subject matter" that underpins the systematic totality of the culture industry. This belief in the inherently subversive effect of textual polyphony and difference underscores Easthope's reading of modernist poetics. But the matter is not so simple. For as Adorno and Horkenheimer demonstrate, incommensurable or "refractory material" is always and everywhere implicated in a dialectical relationship with the "total process of production" that it opposes (Adorno and Horkheimer xii). One of their more melancholy insights is that the culture industry actively produces different images and styles in order to reassert the absolute uniformity of its own authority. Novelty is all around us, from the "standardized jazz improvisation to the exceptional film star whose hair curls over her eye to demonstrate her originality" but what is individual here "is no more than the generality's power to stamp the accidental detail so firmly that it is accepted as such" (Adorno and Horkheimer 154). The "accidental" or incommensurable detail is "accepted as such" because it can be endlessly reproduced as a "house style" or "lifestyle practice" and, paradoxically, it is the capacity of the culture industry to transform difference into a set of uniform discriminations that allows a social body to be demarcated according to the sectional logic of politicians, advertisers and marketing executives. Fredric Jameson makes exactly the same point when he observes that what has happened in the contemporary or postmodern phase of monopoly capitalism is "that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of producing ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation" (Jameson 4-5). It is therefore inadequate to proclaim the ineluctable emancipatory promise of incommensurable or refractory material because "capitalism also produces difference or differentiation as a function of its own internal logic" (Jameson 406).
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
- Status