Theme 2: Critical media studies

Enlightenment was a revolutionary, scientific ideology promoting the advancement of thought together with rationality, industry and technological development on behalf of the animistic naturalism.

At the core of the concept “enlightenment” lays knowledge as a contrast to sensibility and myth. This change meant that what was earlier described with concepts and cause was now replaced by formula, rules and probability. The aim is to understand the world by calculating it and transform it into utility – what doesn’t conform to this standard must be viewed with suspicion.

Knowledge is described as a democratic power in a sense that everyone has access to it but Adorno & Horkheimer criticises it for its totalitarian features, as in how the modern society uses it to manipulate people into a standardized mass and it’s ambition to dominate nature. They state that enlightenment didn’t generate freedom, but only remodelled the hierarchy and social structure. Instead of kings the bourgeoisie now uses the society in developing their economy.

Although enlightenment is assumed to abolish myth, Adorno & Horheimer states it isn’t necessarily so. From a mythical standing point the world is supposed to be explained in terms of origins and names, giving nature and it’s function reason in order to be understood by man. Enlightenment has taken this concept a step further encouraged by the idea of objectivity, to record, calculate and explain. This means that myth not only inspired, but even caused the initiation of enlightenment

From here springs the dialectic of enlightenment, as it’s ambivalence have proved to keep the concept entangled with myth, contradicting their assumed contrasts. Enlightenment’s idea of objectivity and regularity is accused of only being disguised by it’s constant repetition, which in itself becomes a myth. This is discussed further in relation to how culture and art is directed at the people. What comes to question is whether enlightenment actually empowers the people or deceives them from their own ability to contemplate and reflect. Although it may seem as a democratic movement in distributing culture to all social classes, this sort of mass industry of presumed “art” is accused of only being an instrument in creating a collective, standardized mass. Modern culture doesn’t respond to demand as much as it manipulates the crowd into predetermined wills. Although people can recognize and relate to what is presented to them, the standardized content only creates an illusion of individuality, a so-called pseudoindividuality.

Walter Benjamin discusses the authenticity and power of art as well, although, in contrast to Adorno & Horkheimer, he shows more optimism in the opportunities and potential of the more accessible nature and distribution of modern culture. In his essay he presents superstructure, which is represented by the ideology of culture and art. Superstructures’ changes are in general slow, whereas substructure, in this context the production of art, is evolving at a much higher speed. This causes the idea of “true” art to constantly lag behind the modern strategies and technology of culture production. The cause of such a development is people’s perception of art, historically determined by the current time-period, social circumstances and discourses that distinguish it. There have been artistic revolutions throughout the centuries, but these have only emerged as a reaction to social fluctuations. In addition, there also are naturally determined perceptions based on space. Simply put, it’s the impression of distance and uniqueness in the encounter with natural objects. In terms of distance, there can be a conception of “closeness” to reproduced art, as the industrialization of art makes it accessible and approachable to people. However, the uniqueness of an item is not reproducible which causes the art piece to loose it’s authenticity – and with it, the aura. Aura can be described as the difference between a simple drawing and a piece of art: it’s the aura that ascribes the art it’s qualitative attributes (apart from the purely technical ones) and mythical value. As the modern mechanical reproduction causes the decay of the uniqueness of art, the aura withers with it. It may seem as a rather pessimistic view of the development of art, but there are opportunistic aspects of the modern culture industry and in particular the public’s participation in it. For instance are the boundaries between producer/audience, author/reader blurred out. The industrialization of art is giving the media more freedom to express criticism of social conditions and people to participate in the debate. Dadaism is such an example where reproduction has taken on a new art form, which caused moral chock and outrage – and with that critical discussion. This is the most distinct difference between Adorno & Horkheimer contra Benjamin, as Benjamin, although questioning the uniqueness in modern art, at least acknowledges it’s revolutionary potential, whereas Adorno & Horkheimer condemns it for being a manipulative conspiracy led by the bourgeoisie.