Critical Theory

"There [Adorno] states that both high art as well as industrially produced consumer art 'bear the stigmata of capitalism, both contain elements of change (but never, of course, the middle between Schoenberg and the American film). Both are torn halves of an integral freedom, to which, however, they do not add up.'" - The Culture Industry (Introduction)

When I read this, I think about darwin and the challenges to the theory of evolution. The flat-earther argument goes, complex systems can not evolve because that would mean that every step in the transition of an organism from simple to complex would have to be the fittest. I wonder about the absence of this middle ground art which synthesizes the two extremes and see where maybe this principle that is proven misguided in evolution, may actually be valid.

At it's face, it seems to be such that the middle ground art would not be as palatable to audiences because those preferents at each extreme may not have the requisite exposure to the other to appreciate the referencing statement. Therefore, it would follow (from darwin!) that this middle art would not find an audience and would whither from neglect.

However, as with the theory of evolution, this application of the transitional state problem does not account for significant factors which offer counter solutions. Namely, that the statement assumes a pre-existing predilection for high or industrial culture. If this is true, then people seek out what is most gratifying and ignore the rest. The assumption that people make reasoned decisions (even to the extent that of choosing based on their own tastes) of culture is extremely suspect.

The idea that cultural creation and preferences exist in an objective framework is false in that, the mechanisms we construct to create these judgments are compromised because they themselves are children of that system they seek to evaluate (appreciate). Therefore, the statement that there is the culture that we choose by virtue of the fact that what thrives will multiply is based on the assumption that we choose culture rather than settling for some of the culture that there is.

It is absurd to suggest that we choose some culture and then it is created for us. More likely, people within a system decide (guess) what will be interesting to an audience (the characteristics they seek to use to base their analysis on will impact the final product also) and put it out there for consumption. The consumer waits at the end of the tube (literally) for whatever is going to plop out next onto the livingroom floor. They then can vote for it or change the channel.

In this incremental way they are building their culture in the same dyadic way that your eye doctor figures out your prescription. "Ok now, which image is clearer? Is it this one? or this one?" This might be an efficient way to make a measurement, but it is not an efficient way to make a decision. The use of this method in the decision making process will inevitably lead the judgment down one path or another, but a path (linear) none the less. All roads lead to somewhere, but that's not always where you need to be headed.

gotta run.