Talk:Culture industry

Untitled

This is a collision of the contents of this original page and a page entitled "Cultural industry" which addressed the same topic. As a first step towards producing a merged page, I have completely recast the opening material and segued into a moderately coherent rump of the original material. Feel free to pitch in and both simply the concepts and distill down the length.

For the record, the old page "Cultural industry" now has a proposed different use and could also use your TLC. -David91 19:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have now completed a review of the material relevant to Culture Industry. I have moved the residual rump to "Reverse Psychology" as a first step in redistributing the overlong and mixed topic material to more suitable venues. -David91 11:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the element on astrology to the Astrology pages. -David91 05:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enjoyment

Critics of the theory say that the products of mass culture would not be popular if people did not enjoy them

Why is this a critique of the theory of the culture industry? Who has denied that people enjoy pop music or Hollywood movies? Adorno might call this enjoyment superficial or escapist, but he would not deny the obvious fact that it can only be succesful by enjoying its audience. I suggest a reformulation or removal of that "critique" --Sangild 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If the function of the culture industry is to produce popular content, this raises the issue of cause and effect. Adorno posits that the popularity of the content is exploited to achieve the effect of passivity in the audience for political purposes. But an equally valid explanation is that, in a capitalist system, the drive to produce popular material satisfies purely commercial aims. As it stands, I see no problem with the spirit of the wording. David91 16:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cultural industries?

I'm not an expert here, but I'm trying to make links to Bernard Miège. His article says he proposed an alternative to Adorno and Horkheimer's thesis which has been influential, known as Cultural industries, although that article seems to be unrelated. If anybody is knowledgeable enough, this should be mentioned here. Rigadoun (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research?

The article states that the work was written in the early 1940s. Yet the article contains an analysis of the 1970 movie Patton. No references for that analysis is provided, so the analysis appears to be original research. --Zahzuhzaz (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be the source . Not sure how relevant it is to the article. 220.235.252.149 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I found this article regarding the reception of the movie that roughly cooroborates the paragraph but I don't know if it would count as a reliable source. Either way, it's written in such a way that is more reflective of an essay or thesis rather than being a relevant addition to the article. I'm thinking we should just remove the paragraph. TXstockman5 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)