/lit/ - Literature

>The woman is used for work, childbearing; or, if presentable, she enhances the status of her mate. No longer does she sweep the man away in rapture. Adoration reverts to self-love. The world and its purposes demand the whole of man. None can give away any part of himself; he must keep it all within. Bur, in the eyes of praxis, nature is all that is without and underneath, an object-as the girl, in vulgar parlance, has always been for the soldier. Feeling confines itself to power in relation to power. As woman did earlier, man now lays down his arms before man, bur with dark, unswerving coldness. He becomes a woman, with eyes only for power. In the fascist collective," with its teams and work camps, everyone from tender youth is a prisoner in solitary confinement, which breeds homosexuality.

I'm finishing up The Culture Industry right now. Is the rest of the book worth reading? Any sections in particular? The Culture Industry is great, if for no reason other than shedding light and being a clear foundational influence on the cultural criticism that would after it (in the rest of the Frankfurt School, the French Pomos, and contemporary Marxist thought). While things have clearly come very far in the last 70 years, Adorno nailed it down to a staggering degree: the cult of progress, creation and management of false needs, superfluousness of the workers, the triumph of chance and instant-reward over per aspera ad astra, the quasi-religious elevation of rationality, even the triumph of the therapeutic ("Armchair philosophers [social 'scientists'] with their hearts in the right place who, with their kindly man-to-man interventions, turn the socially perpetuated wretchedness into remediable individual cases"), etc. Ton of good quotes.

How is one supposed to understand Adorno's dialectic between the universal and the particular as it related to art and the culture industry? As far as I gather, the two are typically opposed or at odds; this is where style comes from. But under the contemporary culture industry, the universal and the particular are the same or increasingly similar. "Culture today is infecting everything with sameness." This results per Adorno in a notstyle, as there is no "battle" through which style is achieved.

But what exactly is the universal versus the particular? The society at large versus the individual? The objective experience (as far as it is experienced at least partially uniformly by all adherents of a culture) versus the subjective view over that culture (the individual's view of it)?

Read it:
>https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/engl-090-fall2012/files/2012/11/AdornoHorkheimerCultureIndustry.pdf

What the fuck was he saying? I understand his traditional description of art as the contradiction between style (which is cultural) and the depiction of human suffering (content?) that substantively fights against the style. But trademark in the culture industry is style without substance, leaving only the culturally-dependent aspects of art (and no substantive aspects) intact. But if the culture industry can be characterized as more of a not-culture or a negation of culture, what characterizes the style of the era? Imitation of past styles? Something that is determined by the market (ie what will maximize the exchange value, perhaps that masquerades as culture)?

And as an aside, why do Frankfurt School thinkers seem so hesitant to reject the Enlightenment while at the same time criticizing all of its central tenets? Adorno & Horkheimer, Marcuse, Habermas, all seem to hopelessly cling on to some liberal machinations while widely diagnosing and describing the failure of liberal capitalism. Were they really just subversive jews?

>On the walls the deceptively faithful colour reproductions of famous Van Goghs like the 'Sunflowers' or the 'Cafe at Arles', on the bookshelf the boiled-down socialism and psycho-analysis and a little sexology for libertines with inhibitions. . . Every opinion earns the approbation of friends, every argument is known by them beforehand. That all cultural products, even non-conformist ones, have been incorporated into the distribution-mechanisms of large-scale capital, that in the most developed country a product does not bear the imprimatur of mass-production can scarcely reach a reader, view, listener at all, denies deviationary longings their subject matter in advance.

>The intellectuals themselves are already so heavily committed to what is endorsed in their isolated sphere, that they no longer desire anything that does not carry the highbrow tag. Ambition aims solely at expertise in the accepted stock-in-trade, hitting on the correct slogan. The outsiderishness of the initiates is an illusion, they are merely biding their time. To see them as renegades is to asseses them too high; they mask mediocre faces with horn-rimmed spectacles betokening 'brilliance', though with plain-glass lenses, soley in order to better themselves in their own eyes and in the general rat-race. They are already just like the rest.

Stop enabling the culture industry.

>Despite his reservations about the new medium, he and Gretel enjoyed watching different series on German television. Visitors in the know were careful not to disturb the Adornos when ZDF was screening Daktari, an American wildlife series with Judy the chimpanzee and Clarence the cross-eyed lion.
>If Adorno’s advice for Dieterle is perhaps inconsistent with Adorno’s other writings on jazz, his suggestion for the climax of the film offers a vision of jazz as a redemptive force. “Scene in record shop ought to be high spot,” he continues. “Suggest Kit playing six different records for different customers. Customers furiously open boxes. Six records should make satanic concert which by and by is integrated into one mighty jazz piece.”

philosophers really are nothing more than LARPers huh

Are those... exposed breasts?! AHHHHH I'M GOING INSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANE SAVE ME SCHOENBERG

Why did he hate jazz so much?

>>14380874
>He's about the best they have.
OMG! This! At least we have Geniuses such as Adorno and the likes.

>/lit/
>/mu/
>/qa/

>>13922876
>>13922889
>>13922891
>>13922929
>>13923555
>>13923617
>>13923658
>>13923689
>>13923734
>>13923763
>>13923777
>>13923931
>>13923941
>>13923944
>>13923979
>>13924130
>>13924148
>>13924153
>>13924181
>>13924225
>>13924233
>>13924249
>>13924339
>>13924373
>>13924389
>>13924464
>>13924533
>>13924560
>>13924667
>>13924681
>>13924691
>>13924730
>>13925427
>>13925436
>>13925456
>>13925481
>>13925605
>>13925660
>>13925735
>>13925789
>>13926740
>>13926864
>>13926992
>>13927033
>>13927134
>>13927179
>>13927391
>>13927475
>>13927504
Cringe!

>>13061291
listening to schoenbergs 1st quartet, i gotta say im not a fan of his non twelve tone work, maybe the second quartet will be better since it is shorter

Why all the hate?

13 times Cultural Marxists DESTROYED the foundations of WESTERN CIVILIZATION

>look up "adorno beatles" on google expecting to find some pessimistic essays or quotes about the band and their impact
>instead all the top results claim Adorno owned the rights to the Beatles music and wrote their songs to destroy Western culture

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/tabublog.com/2016/02/03/theodor-w-adorno-songwriter-for-all-beatles-songs-director-of-frankfurttavistock-social-engineering-school/amp/

https://rocknerd.co.uk/2016/10/13/theodor-adorno-of-the-frankfurt-school-wrote-all-the-beatles-songs-as-a-cultural-marxist-assault-on-america-possibly/

Uhhh, redpill me on the Beatles/Adorno connection, /lit/

is he a hack?

Why is this man always wrong?

Why is this man always wrong?

>>6741034
because we are not repressed into dull conformity they way yuropoors are, yuropeons will never understand Freedom. Most yuropeons who come to America lack the constitution for freedom and lash out at it like a child separated from their controlling mother. Some eventually get over this infantile disposition, though most end up going back home to their comforting prison cell

Any good writers/books/papers who argue against modern secular humanism?

Pic unrelated.

>>5232593
Stay mad, dullard.