This short essay will take the views and arguments of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer on their self-named “culture industry” at its key interest, and will try to provide rebutting statements from a classical liberalist, and laissez-faire perspective. Lines from a summary of their chapter called Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, within the larger book Dialectic of Enlightenment will be picked and dissected according to liberal economics of free market trade, mixed with the understandings of the author.

“Adorno and Horkheimer view the culture industry in capitalist society as an aspect of enlightenment that has betrayed itself by allowing instrumental logic to dominate human social life.”

What instrument would that be?

“[…]the culture industry—forms of light entertainment – ranging from Hollywood films to elevator music.”

“[…]popular culture is designed to fulfill the growing demands of mass capitalist consumers for entertainment.”

This only makes sense, as technology and progressing views that have surfaced upon entertainment have allowed lower classes of the hierarchic society to access readily available light entertainment, and the free market has a certain tendency to take whatever it rightfully deserves. Artisans from the times of Ancient Greece to digital artists of today, whether through state funding by magistrates in the former’s case or through payments on Paypal for the latter, have been happy to provide whatever corner piece—or a “pièce” de résistance if the patron demands it for what is more than a millennium.

“Additionally, the culture industry keeps workers occupied, as expressed by the famous quote from “Dialectic of Enlightenment”: Amusement has become an extension of labour under late capitalism. Popular culture appears to offer a refuge and diversion from work, but it actually causes the worker to further immerse themselves in a world of products and consumerism.”

Ignorant and indulgent behaviour should never be blamed on the adaptiveness of capitalism when concerned with the desires of mankind. What people do in their free time to entertain themselves rests precisely on what they find to be nurturing their minds and alleviating boredom at that time. The simplicity of a layman may lead him to watch B-movies and lacklustre series with no real substance and this will undoubtedly lead him towards increased consumerism, while on the other hand, the due diligence paid in man-hours to develop wisdom and creative skills may very well lead a person of similar background to elevated understandings of entertainment (i.e; art) and make him desire and even pay generously for what he holds to be objectively substantial. It could be an impressionist painting, a portrait or even an abstract splat of paint on canvas.

“The only freedom the culture industry truly offers is freedom from thinking.”

This deduced claim confuses escapism and denial of real-world problems in one’s life with corporate manipulative tactics. A case could’ve been made about the latter and it would’ve been argued to its merits, but even then the discussion would’ve been cut short with the realization that daily marketing strategies of corporations only try and target susceptible customer candidates and coerce them mentally into buying their products and services, not to change their appreciation of art or to smear the notion of creative output onto the pavement. The decision of living life in a carefree attitude is all done by the consumers themselves, and no “socially just” argument can shift the blame back from them.

“Products of the culture industry appear as artwork but are, in fact, dependent on industry and economy. This means they are subject to the interests of money and power. All products of the culture industry are designed for profit.”

Reality does not exist in a vacuum, neither can human lives be truly or possibly lived within it, or art created with the help of it. Mankind is viewed by some as a mere cog in many cycles greater than its corporeal whole, and as such it requires nourishment and shelter to stay alive, and it creates, uses, destroys, and passes along many elements of life to complete these circles. All this goes to say that any argument denying the inevitable power struggle to stay and thrive in the endless cycles of life can hold no intrinsic value, and are inadmissible. If viewed in this manner, art simply is a type of human output, and it has value insofar as the time and effort that has gone into creating it, the artist valuing it, the time and effort beforehand—the education that has enabled it, and lastly by the patron who may or may not commission it given his budget. As such, science governs all, and it especially governs power, and it surely says that art gets its power from industry, for it is a leisurely activity enabled by the hard work of industry satisfying the inescapable cycles of life.