Adorno And Horkheimer's Essay

In a world that has become immune to accepting all types of art, Marya Mannes believes we have lost our standards and ability to identify something as “good” or “bad”. In her essay, “How Do You Know It’s Good”, she discusses society’s tendency to accept everything out of fear of wrongly labelling something as being good or bad. She touches on various criteria to judge art, such as the artist’s purpose, skill and craftsmanship, originality, timelessness, as well as unity within a piece rather than chaos. She says that an individual must decide if something is good “on the basis of instinct, experience, and association” (Mannes). I believe that by using standards and the process of association, we will be able to judge what makes an art piece good in comparison to others. However, Mannes forces me to consider the difference between what may be appealing versus what is actually good, and when deciding which art we should accept, which is truly more important. I believe that “good” and “bad” are two ends of a large, subjective spectrum of grey area. It is possible for a piece of art to be good in some areas and bad in others, and if something does not live up to all of our standards, it does not necessarily mean it should be dismissed. Thus, I believe my personal standards for judging art are based on which my standards are largely based on the personal reaction evoked from a piece of art. Though I agree with Mannes’ standards to an extent, I believe that certain standards, such as evoking a personal response, can be more telling of if a piece of art is good as opposed to its timelessness, or the level of experience of an artist in his/her craft.

Outline the similarities and differences between Adorno et al.’s (1950) and Altemeyer’s (1981) approach to authoritarianism

One of the main criticisms the Adorno and Horkheimer had of the art produced within the culture industry was that everything produced was made to look different but in actuality everything produced was identical (Adorno and Horkheimer). Adorno and Horkheimer claim that “under monopoly all mass culture is identical” (Adorno and Horkheimer) this concept can be seen and applied to

If the image is no longer unique and exclusive, the art object, the thing, must be made mysteriously so,” (Berger 44). Therefore, the final step in the exploitation of power is mystification of its origins. Over time a concept will build its image and solidify its strength through results, showing the public its value until it becomes integrated and thus, hidden within society. There are several examples of power that has become formally accepted or internalized by the public and it is difficult to see how they exploit power because their origins are mystified. For the concept of originality in art, we can see how its status may have risen because of the definition we give to “originality” rules that have commercial purposes or vice versa. Some examples include companies that have copyright issues to protect names and identities that belong to them, or schools that incorporate rules about plagiarism. The idea of originality has already become internalized within our society that assigning a market meaning with it, just seems natural. If our judicial system has already incorporated ideas of “originality”, then not many people will see any problems with it. However, it is important to look at the origins and realize how a power came to be to prevent it from being exploited. Another covert concept integrated within society

Art is one aspect of the past that has carried on for decades. Art in any form may it be poetry, novels, and playwright, sculpting as well as painting, has been an outlet for generations and continues to be an outlet and a means for expression. This paper will discuss “ The Mona Lisa” one of Da Vinci’s most famous paintings, as well as another great painting, Antonio Veneziano’s

Throughout human history people used to capture the reality of their time, express their feelings and share their impressions by copying both literally or figurative the mundane. The so-called artists have had different impacts in society all along the centuries. Only a few are currently taught in school, although the reverberation of their work is still impregnated in XXI Century. Nowadays, the term ‘artist’ can be used in reference of painters, sculptors, writers, singers, choreographers and other professions whose production are considered valuable culturally speaking. One of the main problems is that their work produce such a magnificent impact on the audience the artist is set aside and usually forgotten as a person, so they feel their rights to be violated.

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

The earliest forms of art had made it’s mark in history for being an influential and unique representation of various cultures and religions as well as playing a fundamental role in society. However, with the new era of postmodernism, art slowly deviated away from both the religious context it was originally created in, and apart from serving as a ritual function. Walter Benjamin, a German literary critic and philosopher during the 1900’s, strongly believed that the mass production of pieces has freed art from the boundaries of tradition, “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependance on ritual” (Benjamin 1992). This particular excerpt has a direct correlation with

Philosopher Arthur Danto, author of “The Artworld,” an artistic criticism, states that “to see something as art requires something that the eye cannot descry—an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld” (201). Artistic theory, according to Danto, requires the presence of a subject, style, rhetorical ellipses, and that of historical context. Danto is capable of developing this view on art with the aid of an imaginary character, Testadura. Testadura, however, makes mistakes, as well as corrections, about the objects before him.

“The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer is a pivotal article in history that changed the way in which many communications scholars viewed media. Both authors were members of the Frankfurt School, a school of thought which looked further into Karl Marx’s theories about capitalism and the issues of mass production. Published in 1944, Adorno and Horkheimer revealed their beliefs that the media, much like the economy, is becoming mass produced, and is therefore turning people in society into media-consuming robots. Industrialization created work lives for people in which they would work on only one part of a larger machine. As a result, they felt less involved in the completion of the project as a whole, and therefore felt less pride in their jobs and their lives in general. Instead, these people turned to media and pop culture so that they would feel more fulfillment within their lives. Adorno and Horkheimer believed that these people had a reduced capacity for original thought because media is now force feeding them the ideas of what they can think and feel. This essay will prove that although Adorno and Horkeimer’s points were justified through the eyes of authors George Lipsitz, Lev Manovich, and Susan J. Douglas, there are still exceptions to their theories that they do not account for.

Arthur C. Danto in “The Artworld” provides us with the argument that, “To see something as art requires something that the eye cannot descry-an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.” Danto shows us the importance of the artworld in order to know that a work of art is more than just what we can plainly see. Danto provides two theories he calls the “IT” (Imitation theory) and the “RT” (Reality theory). With these two theories, Danto explains how we can define art and why “The Artworld” is needed to help understand art, because after all, “these days one might not be aware he was on artistic terrain without an artistic theory to tell him so.”

As literary critics, Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly about the value of art in human society. Plato attempts to strip artists of the power and prominence they enjoy in his society, while Aristotle tries to develop a method of inquiry to determine the merits of an individual work of art. It is interesting to note that these two disparate notions of art are based upon the same fundamental assumption: that art is a form of mimesis, imitation. Both philosophers are concerned with the artist's ability to have significant impact on others. It is the imitative function of art which promotes disdain in Plato and curiosity in Aristotle. Examining the reality that art

Art is all around us. There are many different forms of art. It can be something created, captured, or it can be already existent. Not a single person is to say what makes something art because there is a different definition for everyone. However, there are a couple factors that come into mind whenever someone decides to declare something as art. In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting four different pieces of art. I will be discussing each art piece’s form, time period of creation, intention or purpose, and value. These four pieces of art are Michelangelo’s Pieta, Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, Mark Rothko’s No.61, and the “Oyster Dress” by Alexander McQueen. These works of art come in all different shapes and sizes but they are valued

“Painting today is pure intuition and luck and taking advantage of what happens when you splash the stuff down. “- Francis Bacon. However when I learnt more about history of art and the way each movement and happenings in the world inspired artist to make new works, I was able to see much more than just a canvas with random paints and sketches. The interesting part about this concept is that each piece of art could be interpreted in many different ways. In contemporary art there isn’t right and wrong, each of us view and find different meanings and connections with artworks.

The area of art is popularly known for heightening emotions, challenging stereotypes, and ultimately providing insights into how individuals view the surrounding world. The artist and the observer time and time again see pieces in overwhelmingly different ways. Individuals may wonder why this is so. What could possibly create such a drastic change from one perspective to another? When it comes down to it, experiences are the answer. The artist and the observer have different