OK another but probably totally different attempt --
> Consider the crucifix as an example. Its the official emblem of
> Christianity. They've been made in every material and every
> medium. Nobody could possibly name the artists or really identify were
> they come from or much about them at all (except experts and scholars
> who specialize in that activity).
But, the fact that you can name any artists at all is very important, as is the recognition that not only can crucifixes be produced through a huge diversity of media but by anyone at all and from any medium including those free to hand.
Adorno, to use the example of mass culture dismissal we were working with, would never choose the crucifix as a prime example of the culture industry because even for him it's not homogenous or homogenising enough -- not in terms of production, distribution, or consumption. It would also put him in a difficult situation given that he clearly wants to locate mass culture as something belonging to a stage of capitalism which the crucifix clear precedes it (even mass produced crucifixes do).
Adorno does not oppose mass culture to popular culture in his specific analyses (only in general), but rather to Art. On the one hand, his discussion for the most part depends on a clear dichotomy of artist/producer and consumer, and this would work very poorly for the crucifix given that anyone can make one, it can even still be authorised. And yet, religious art, including the crucifix, is still not only an example of but in many senses the foundation of high Art. Huge numbers of people travel to see specific representations of the crucifix, or productions of crucifixes by specific artists or with very high status as particular works in an equally 'auratic' sense (even if they don't have named authors).
Adorno's critique of the culture industry may condemn control of cultural production by industry, but he still very much wants to (let's be generous and say) 'advocate' what should be produced as culture, as well of course as what really counts as art. In fact, he strongly endorses the production of art entirely independent of 'popular' taste -- this is only partly about critically important 'difficulty' -- and is very clear that only certain kinds of experts can identify it. This mirrors in a very important way the institutional patronage of art furthered most spectacularly by the church and its attendant families.
> They are official art. The only
> unique one I can think of, off the top of my head is Grunewald's
> tryptic. Okay maybe, the Rubens one with the sheet, and Rembrandt's
> etching. What's that three out of millions, or three out of hundreds
> of extremely famous and very valuable ones?
Hmm, what is Rubens with a sheet? Descent from the Cross? ie. people taking the body down and there's a sheet behind him? I just cant think of a Rubens which is only cross+sheet... it's bugging me and all my books are in storage and internet art searches take ages.
> There are ugly ones, pretty ones, perhaps inspiring ones,
> whatever. They are the official logo of the Christianity brand, often
> abbreviated by a cross, without the body. I can't imagine how to
> perform a critique of Christianity by depicting a crucifixion.
>
> In a related way, just to re-state the point, so mass culture is
> official culture made for mass distribution.
OK. Well... around and on my computer there's a book by Jane Austen, a filing tray with various printed sheets of paper, a Buffy DVD, a lego parrot, a red texta (this house eats pens), a glass with wine, a coaster advertising English beer, Tricky playing on WinAmp, and of course a load of other software and a desk and chair. All of these are in there different ways "mass culture", but what do precisely do they represent "officially"? The software is probably the easiest, but I don't think the argument could be convincing in the other cases.
The crucifix, every crucifix, is in fact highly subject to socially-specific meaning production. That's why even within the church the crucifix does not have a stable meaning, and massive debates are cited in the choices about how one should be represented, used, and what it means -- even whether or not it includes a represented body is a huge deal. Lots of Christian sects lay claim to the cross, and in fact many do not. The local meanings and uses of the crucifix are in addition very varied. In fact, I have several, although I don't specifically collect them or anything, and I'm sure their meanings to and for me are not what the CC currently finds useful or authorises.
Adorno might say that even this lego parrot is exemplary mass culture... no child spontaneously desires a red&yellow miniature parrot, rather the uses of the parrot are circumscribed, predicted and demanded by its sale and packaging (I think it's part of a pirate set). But anyone who has ever seen kids playing with such things would probably attest that the parrot will have tons of uses not officially prescribed or even predictable and that it may be totally uninteresting/undesirable to a huge number no matter how it is obtained. In fact, this particular parrot is here because someone used it to recognise my father's atttachment to the parrots he feeds in his garden. Is that making any sense?
This is more of a ramble than anything succinct, useful, or rehearsed, so make of it what you will.
Catherine
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT: http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/