More Frankfurt school stuff - Jay Aesthetic theory Marxist aesthetic theory can be broadly split into the Leninist call for partisan political work (in its extreme the more Stalinist socialist realism), and the approach following Engels, to measure works not by political intention but by social significance (according to Jay, in turn summarising George Steiner, 1996: 173). This would allow for works to generate social significance beyond the intentions of the particular artist or writer. Jay cites the classic example of Luk‡cs in History and Class Consciousness, who in developing Engels distinction between realism and naturalism, managed to combine both positions, celebrating the work of Balzac over Zola, despite their politics and then rejecting the whole thesis because of its rejection by the Leninist party hierarchy. Class conflict was the main focus rather than also paying attention to the pressing effects of technical innovation. Despite this, the essay in important in introducing the concept of 'reification' (define). By far the most well-known discussion of aesthetics in relation to the Frankfurt School is through the work of Benjamin and Adorno. Both shared a concern for the language and style employed for their writing - for instance, in Benjamin, there is the example to produce a work with subjective elements removed by writing an essay entirely made up from quotes from other sources. Thus form and content are seen to be both equally important and not to be falsely separated. Adorno similarly insists that 'defiance of society includes defiance of its language' (quoted in Jay, 1996: 176). Readers of Benjamin often find his text dense and contradictory. This is partly explained by his use of the dialectical method, but also his conviction that multiple layers of meaning are possible in every part of the essay, and that every part needs to be considered in relation to the whole. Fundamental to both approaches and that of the Frankfurt School as a whole is the conviction that culture must be seen in a social context, and that myths of individual artistic creativity were untenable. For my purpose, this trajectory is neatly summarised in thinking of the interpretation of art 'as a kind of code language for processes taking place within society, which must be deciphered by means of critical analysis' (Jay, 1996: 177). The inherent over-simplification (although reductive) serves the purpose of taking culture, as an index for and in relation to, lived social and material relations. Adorno describes the artwork as not autonomous but as a 'force-field between subject and object'; between subjective processes and objective processes which necessarily included 'material filtered through the existing social matrix'. Taste and processes of reception were similarly mediated in the social realm and 'cultural criticism must become social physiognomy' as Adorno puts it (Jay, 1996: 177-8). The institut saw art as the last preserve of a yearning for utopia, in its reconciliation of form and content, subjective and objective elements. A successful work of art, therefore, is one that expresses reconciliation negatively, by revealing its contradictions. Adorno says: 'A successful work of art, according to immanent criticism, is one that resolves objective contradictions in a spurious harmony, but one expresses the idea of harmony negatively by embodying the contradictions, pure and uncompromised, in its innermost structure' (Adorno, in Prisms, 1967: 32, also quoted in Jay, 1996: 179). (note: leaving aside the religious connotations 'immanent criticism' is that which is inherent - it exists, operates, remains within) The problem lay in the fact that contradictions were seen to be resolved. This reductionist tendency might be opposed by the dialectical method. Adorno approach to the study of music is an obvious example. Music contained social contradictions but was neither simply reflective of society nor autonomous. His work is often mistakenly read as opposing 'popular' and 'serious' musics - however, the issue was really around its status as a commodity and whether it was market-lead or not. Therefore, although some music might appear obscure, it did not make it reactionary in itself. Popular music for Adorno, took on an ideological role because of its mass appeal and reach. Music was an example of commodity fetishism, evident in its popularity and emphasis on styles, fashions and the star-system, evoking 'standardisation and pseudo-individuality' (Jay, 1996: 192). Adorno's argument for a new asceticism, therefore, was in some contrast to Benjamin's interpretation of the revolutionary potential of popular cultural forms (like film). Allegedly, it was Benjamin's association with Brecht that encouraged the view that technical innovation and art might contain revolutionary potential. Benjamin remained somewhat distant from critical theory, far more concerned with analogy and a more general approach to dialectics. In Benjamin's work, myth is taken to indicate repetitiveness and sameness, of the type produced by capitalism in contrast to 'origin is our goal' (quoting Kraus in 'Theses on the Philosopy of history') in which the 'ur-form' both indicates origin and newness (from the German 'Ursprung'). Hence, the interest in the destruction of 'aura' emerges in Benjamin's artwork essay: 'The instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics' (?). For Adorno, this was no surprise as art necessarily had a political function and all art demanded close attention. Adorno and Benjamin famously disagreed on the consequences of this destruction of aura. Whilst Benjamin expressed the positive aspects of this shift, Adorno expressed the negative one that standardisation and pseudo-individuality would ensue. The essay 'Kulturindustrie' (The Culture Industry) expressed this tendency in more detail reflecting the Institut's study of American mass culture during the post-war (ww2) period. However, and importantly, this was no defence of high culture as such, nor a conservative attack of popular culture but a recognition of the breakdown of the distinction and a way to reveal material conditions and social contradictions. The term itself, a contradiction in terms, indicates Adorno and Horkheimer's disdain for populism. The problem with mass culture was simply that it was not democratic in other words, and technology served these ends. Production-consumption: It was Marcuse who described the separation of production and consumption as indicative of an unfree society.