Bring the Noise

[malgosia askanas]

James Schmidt wrote:

> Adorno's point (and it is his, more than Horkheimer's) is that - contra
> Benjamin - the mechanical reproduction and mass distribution of "high" art
> leads to a regression in the ability to appropriate it.  So, being exposed
> to Chopin rather than Springsteen doesn't really amount to much:  if I
> understand Adorno correctly, all this involves is a question of where the
> profits are entered in the ledger.  Since the 1940s, it has become apparent
> that Chopin can't generate the income that Sprinsteen (once) did [though I
> doubt Sony is raking in cash on the Ballad of Tom Joad ... but that's
> another story]. 

I think that perhaps we need to get a better grip on what we are discussing.
My understanding of Ralph's drift is that it has to do with the spiritual
value of high-quality cultural things.  In this regard, the question of
whether or not these things are distributed for profit becomes somewhat
unimportant.  This, I think, is why he brought up the fact that Duke
Ellington was commercially successful, and yet less obviously "complicitous"
with the commercial establishment than, say, Springsteen.  The question is:
does aesthetic quality constitute a value that is in and of itself, in some
sense, revolutionary, progressive, visionary, in complicity with the forces 
of Light rather than Darkness?  And if it does, why are we so feeble in
championing it?


-m