the artistic experience — essay
In reference to: Adorno and Horkheimer from The Culture Industry
Thematic questions:
How do we maintain our subjectivity true, authentic selves within the web of survival that capitalism enforces, does art suffer at all when it is subject to a market test (has to sell to succeed), and is there still such a thing as good and bad art or productions that are not art at all. Are art and entertainment interchangeable?
Reading Notes:
The mentality of the public, which allegedly and actually favors the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system, not an excuse for it. (p. 96).
The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power. The notion of style as a merely aesthetic regularly is a retrospective fantasy of Romanticism. (103)
Talks about that style in relation to art changes through the ages of time and how genuine style isn’t actually genuine when you take history into consideration.
Also expresses that the style of something, even though now it holds a factual category, was viewed differently during the time of its creation. EX. Mozart. His work is now considered classical but during his time “resist the style they incarnate.” (p. 103).
Capitalist production hems them in so tightly, in body and soul, that they unresisting succumb to whatever is proffered to them. (106).
Talking about capitalism, consumerism, and the idea that success comes in the form of money is what forces a control towards expression and creates rules for art.
Touches on the concept that it's a facade, the idea of success because there are so many rules that you're almost a slave to them.
Culture is a paradoxical commodity. (131)
Advertising today is a negative principle, a blocking device: anything which does not bear its seal of approval is economically suspect. (131)
Historically, artists have been the driving force behind creative innovation. Whether through traditional craftsmanship—painting, sculpture, and the like—or unconventional mediums like contemporary art, dance, music, or architecture, they have shaped cultural trends for centuries. Artists infuse the world with authentic expression, inspiring others to pursue greater purpose. They demonstrate that creativity knows no bounds, and even as society evolves, art remains timeless in its relevance. This freedom of expression has led to countless innovations through design, culture, and aesthetics, fostering revolutionary ideas. In The Culture Industry, Adorno and Horkheimer critique how art’s stylistic and cultural dimensions can be manipulated, offering a philosophical lens on the exploitation of artistic ideals.
On the surface, the life of an artist seems enriching, a celebration of unbounded expression or limitless abilities to inevent. Yet in an imperfect world, systemic flaws distort this narrative and sometimes repress these revelations. Today, numerous forces undermine the positive potential of self-expression, stifling artistic innovation. As both a student and an artist, I find it increasingly difficult to create authentically within a capitalist, creatively restrictive, and depressive society. Adorno and Horkheimer argue that “culture is a paradoxical commodity” (131), and indeed, society’s obsession with wealth and capitalist greed has eroded genuine artistic culture. Design is reduced to soulless minimalism—a “less is more” mentality that drains vibrancy from creative expression, leaving behind a monotonous, depressive gray. Shifting the ideology of designing with intent to soulless archetypes.
Corporations, driven by gluttonous profit motives, prioritize cheap, mass-produced content over high-quality authenticity. Over the past few decades, the commodification of creativity has stripped away the essence of true artistry, and society has passively allowed corporations to exploit genuine expression. The lack of critique exacerbates the repression of expression to the point where we, as a society, have lost the plot. Focusing on forms of expression that have clear malevolent intentions and not seeing the importance of the conversation. Shifting the paradox where you can’t even critique socially accepted projects. Public perception now glorifies fame, while critical discourse challenging powerful corporations has been systematically dismantled. As Adorno and Horkheimer assert, “The mentality of the public, which allegedly and actually favors the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system, not an excuse for it” (96).
Wealthy corporations have cultivated loyal fanbases by initially delivering “authentic” or “lore-accurate” creations, only to later abandon artistic integrity in favor of profit. They justify subpar work, what should be high-quality design, as acceptable, facing little criticism for their lack of effort or blatant greed. “Capitalist production hems them in so tightly, in body and soul, that they unresistingly succumb to whatever is proffered to them” (106). It’s infuriating to see fans defend these corporations vehemently, solely because of past achievements. While these companies have produced great work, they now exploit their reputations for financial gain, revealing capitalism’s delusional grip on society, where the oppressed defend their oppressors.
Adorno and Horkheimer focus on the film and music industries as prime examples of corporate greed exploiting artists and art. Though their analysis stems from their era, it remains relevant today. In film, corporations like Disney monopolize creativity by acquiring smaller studios, eliminating competition, and consolidating control over various fanbases. Financially, Disney’s dominance ensures profitability regardless of quality, yet their greed ruins beloved franchises (e.g., classic Disney films, Marvel, Pixar), botching beloved Disney Classics, and churns out poorly executed new releases. They cut corners in production, underpay workers (writers, animators, designers), and prioritize profit over artistry, despite already being a billion-dollar empire.
The music industry, too, suffers from corporate exploitation, often at the expense of artists. Established musicians with massive followings sometimes sacrifice quality for cash grabs, repackaging old content as new. A glaring example is Nicki Minaj’s Pink Friday albums, which “reinvented” past hits with minor tweaks or sampling tracks from artists like Cyndi Lauper and Junior Senior, to take the popularity of those artists to boost their own. In different circumstances, sampling other artists has been an easy copout to creating hit singles, and the artist not taking the sample and turning it into something great. Despite the lack of originality, fans praised the releases as groundbreaking, unaware they were being sold repurposed material under the guise of innovation.
That said, reinvention can be done meaningfully when artists genuinely care about their craft. Acts like Men I Trust and Charli XCX exemplify this, though their styles differ, both elevate their work with authenticity, and express their creativity through their appreciation for the craft. Charli XCX’s Brat album introduced her distinct sound, and after letting it resonate with audiences, she built popularity and relevance. Originally, her style of music wasn’t the most popular, but through her authentic expression, audiences can feel the thought and care that goes into her creative process. Now, her current album has exploded in fame, going beyond an album and integrating into pop culture. Even to the point where it was proclaimed an era in time, titled Brat Summer. Then she would remix tracks to refine her aesthetic, amplifying the album’s impact, and arguably, making her more famous.
Charli XCX embodies a generation of musicians resisting corporate greed. She openly critiques the commercialization of art and the frustration of creating outside mainstream demands. When fans criticized her extended album art for lacking the original Brat’s iconic appeal, she definitely destroyed and replaced the digital cover, then posted a satirical version mocking the backlash. Even went as far as asking her fanbase if they approved of her satirical album cover. Highlighting a common conversation artists have dealt with the critique of their vision, almost forcing them to change their expression because it doesn’t fit a narrative. Her refusal to conform, even when unpopular, exemplifies true artistic expression in culture, style, and design.
As an artist, I deeply value authentic expression, but the current landscape makes it feel unattainable. The world seems to be moving toward less creativity and more control, dampening my optimism. Art feels corrupted, and without accountability for corporations, the future of meaningful artistic success appears bleak, especially in design, where work is increasingly reduced to lifeless, uninspired products.