Only you would characterize culture that does (only) this as “propaganda” not true left cultural production. DO I have that right?">

That is about right. It has a sort of vague propaganda value, not an aesthetic one. But again, do you really want Hollywood writing your propaganda? Even at the level of propaganda, much of the content is undercut by the form.

What is the “actual meaning and effect of the culture work in the world”, if not the facts of it’s circulating as a commodity and reinforcing dominant culture?

True, there is some overdetermination. Even extremely reactionary cultural forms can be creatively appropriated on some level. The first random example that comes to mind is the preservation of animist religions beneath Christian or Islamic hegemony. But these are largely defensive strategies. The subject carves out a new way of identifying within the imposed culture. Only some cultural forms lend themselves to this, and only in certain circumstances. And for various reasons I do not think Avatar is one of them. It is an interesting theoretical question though: what limitations does form impose upon creative appropriation? Under what circumstances can creative appropriation become an offensive rather than defensive position?

But again we have to go back to Marcuse. If alienation has become an objective condition, where individuals are invested in and complicit in their own subjugation, then there is not a lot of room for creative appropriation. Perhaps in certain places objective conditions are different enough from those that Marcuse observed to open up some possibilities. But I am more interested in struggling to build a new culture than finding places to hideout in the old one.

We will get to that.

I cannot see what you think is disingenuous. I have stated very clearly that I think that culture industry products help perpetuate disenfranchisement, both because of the circumstances in which they are produced and circulate, and because they generally reinforce the political and cultural ideas of the ruling class; This reinforcement takes place not only at the level of content, but also (and I think, more significantly) at the level of form. In fact I think that lighting angles and “metaphoric juxtapositions” (i.e. filmic montage) are a perfectly legitimate terrain of cultural struggle, if perhaps a bit specialized. But one need not understand them in perfect detail to appreciate their use.

Yes, there is some room in Hollywood productions for contradictions to develop. But these are really quite slim. Less constrained forms of cultural production have a greater freedom to operate, and they deserve to be supported. Obviously, many independent films also reinforce or reproduce dominant cultural forms as well and deserve to be criticized for this.

I believe I have already answered “in what way” cultural productions can have meaning and efficacy: by resisting dominant cultural ideas both at the levels of content and form. This is a broad but clear statement, and there are many specific ways it could be accomplished depending on the circumstances.

The question of meaning and efficacy “for whom” is an important one. I will reflect on it and respond. I would invite Radical Eyes to give his view on this matter as well, as I suspect he has an opinion.

We might even begin with the third section of Sartre’s “What is Literature?”, titled “For Whom Does One Write?”

Since when is that not a criteria for art? And who decided that?

This is a bit disingenuous since you kept using words like “disenfranchisement” to refer to a social condition which was reinforced by popular culture. You also insisted that form prevented any content other than that of capitalist ideology. To quote you: “The process of picking oneself up from political disinheritance does not start behind 3D glasses.” And what about “communist” and “left” films you kept referring to? Are those aesthetic criteria? If not, if they are political, is it not a measure of “efficacy” that the themes they raise are to be discussed? Are we to limit our discussion to lighting angles and clever metaphoric juxtapositions?

In fact, if art does not generate discussion is it good art, or even art at all? Do you think Damien Hirst doesn’t want people to ask why he is slicing up sharks or Andres Serrano wanted “Piss Christ” to be passed over in silence?

I agree with you that art is about “meaning” and “efficacy”. But you never did answer my question: to whom? Now I’ll add one more: in what way?

I am tiring of this, so I will limit myself to the following:

You need to re-read the above exchange between Mike and I in which I already addressed many of the same objects you have just made. I am only going to repeat myself so many times.

When I say that your unfamiliarity with these artists or musicians is a problem, I did not intend it as a personal attack. I simply mean to point out how many people who are otherwise quite informed are unaware of large parts of left cultural production. I think the failure to engage with these works is a general problem, especially for the American left.

I did not dismiss Avatar as propaganda. What I said was that the defense you are mounting of it seems to defend it as propaganda, and not as art. That is, even it does “generate discussion”, this is not the criteria by which one judges art, but propaganda.

Anyways, the bit about talking in the third person was not directed at yourself, but at Radical-Eyes. He was referring to himself in third person, no?

I assume it is me to whom REN is referring with the “third person” comment. I plead guilty. I had forgotten that I had posted a similar critique of Zizek under “Radical Eyes” in this thread before posting it under my own last name in another. Thanks for reminding me.

Back to issues of substance, if I may?

REN, So then I take it by your latest response that your AGREE with the comment from ZH that I asked you to take a position on? You agree that mass culture works can help to “put issues on the table for discussion”?

Only you would characterize culture that does (only) this as “propaganda” not true left cultural production. DO I have that right?

I just want to repeat the essential point.

Clearly form (in either or both of the senses that you have defined it) exerts a sort of DETERMINING force on content and the way that content will be received. But other factors determine that reception as well–which is to say the actual meaning and effect of the culture work in the world. (This of course makes the overall phenomenon OVER-determined.) This seems to me to be quite obvious…..Yet this contention is quite different from the argument that I hear coming from Zizek (as well as yourself), which is that form NEGATES (radical/progressive/critical) content.

“The misrepresentation that your [my?] critique is founded upon”? Do tell.

“The fact that you are not familiar with the majority of them is part of the problem I am trying to bring to light. ”

That’s not a problem at all, just an opportunity for me to learn more, but I tend to be curious by nature. You, however have not provided any compelling explanation as to why Alphaville [which I enjoyed] is more worthwhile than the latest Johnny Depp film [which I probably will enjoy when I get to see it].

“There is a rich history of leftist cultural production that resists dominate cultural forms. I do not see why these works should languish in obscurity”

Neither do I. They certainly do deserve to be seen as broadly as possible. Why is this in contradiction to seeing Avatar or any Hollywood film? But do you really want these films to be popular? Their acceptance by a mass audience might put their quality into question.

“If “the value of such productions” is merely that they place “certain topics on the table for discussion,” then such productions are not art but propaganda.”

You are so caught up in aestheticism that you can’t see how you want it both ways. On the one hand, mass culture dulls the critical senses, but on the off-chance that it may actually stir some thought and controversy, it’s dismissed by default regardless of its aesthetic merits. I’ll remember that next time I watch a Kurosawa, Kubrick or Hitchcock film. Also, I find it remarkable that a film that is able to insert topics like imperialism and race into mainstream conversation and it’s dismissed as propaganda on that basis – that people are actually talking about it!

“I never claimed that the goal of cultural productions ought to be to immediately incite revolutionary action. What I claim is that they should resist dominant cultural forms in meaningful way, with some efficacy. ”

Here, you pull back from addressing the issue that is raised by words like “efficacy”, and now “meaningful”. Efficacious and meaningful for whom? You mention disenfranchisement and yet don’t show how something like Soviet Factography has or can overcome this. I feel the only way to argue this is to presume that the influence of cultural works overshadows that of other political, economic, social and emotional relations. Rather, I suggest that cultural work enters into and influences existing networks of relations, including those that produced the work, but also gets transformed in the process.

“That is, despite the content transmitted by a film’s narrative, the form of this narrative and the form of its reception usually insure that it reinforces the dominant culture.”

Perhaps this where your confusion is best expressed. You are assuming that the aesthetic commodity can only take one form and be produced from one place. What is “the dominant culture” exactly, and why would non-dominant culture be any better? Postmodernism has been called the logic of late capitalism and I think there’s truth to that. That is, the proliferation of several forms is the very mode of experience under modern capitalism, whether produced by major corporations or an independent artists. Let’s break that down:

1] Pasolini [a communist], like other filmmakers, had to exploit workers to make his films. It was and is unavoidable for a large scale enterprise like filmmaking

2] Even as an individual producing brilliant collages, John Heartfield may not have exploited anyone directly, but the very conditions in which he worked relied on exploitation: who built his house, made his clothes, gathered the food he bought, created the original images he re-arranged, etc.,?

You are not really arguing against the commodity form at all, you are just rejecting one in favor of another, dumping the corporate for the petty artisan, or auter as it may be. While we live under capitalism, it will be a part of everything we produce. Reductionist materialism fails to account for the qualities that make rebellion and revolution possible, our ability to think about and transform our surroundings even while being part of it.

“By the way, why are you referring to yourself in the third person?”

I’m not Radical Eyes.

I cannot speak to the popularity of these posts on this site, but I do not see how it would really affect the arguments that I have put forth. I think a post or two about Avatar is practically obligatory, my preference is for those that critique it, not those that defend it. And especially not those who defend it by relying on the authority of statements made by it’s director.

By the way, why are you referring to yourself in the third person?

I am not “falling into” the mode of reading that you critique, I am defending it; defending it not only from your critique, but from the misrepresentation that your critique is founded on.

You take issue with a number of Zerohour’s arguments, but not with the crucial one that I have copied and pasted below:

Zerohour wrote:

*Does anyone truly expect Reds or Avatar to generate a wave of radical thinking and politics? I think the value of such productions is that it places certain topics on the table for discussion, which is an occasion to debate and re-think ideas. These Avatar posts are some of the most highly trafficked ones on Kasama, precisely because this film raises issues of race, colonialism, representation, ecology, class. It presents an opportunity to challenge “common sense.” *

Do you disagree with this statement?

It seems at least to me to be difficult to disagree with. But perhaps you will find some way to.

You really do seem to me to be falling into the mode of reading that J. Ramsey criticizes in Zizek here http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/14/zizek-avatar-and-the-dialectic-of-fantasy/

Again I would refer you to the two-fold distinction of the word “form” as defined in my above post. A commodity form is not only charging money for something but also the imposition or adoption of a set of formal constraints. If you can not make the distinction, then it is certainly you who are misreading Benjamin.

Adorno’s negative judgment of jazz is problematic, but you will need to qualify your claim that it is racist. What is more, he softened these statements somewhat over time. And anyways, even if Adorno was racist, that is hardly a reason not to listen to Schoenberg (who for his part, was rather skeptical of Adorno).

I never claimed that there is some form of “direct transmission” from Hollywood to spectators. In fact I am arguing the opposite! That is, despite the content transmitted by a film’s narrative, the form of this narrative and the form of its reception usually insure that it reinforces the dominant culture. As Zizek would say, echoing Althusser: ideology is not on the side of fantasy, but on the side of reality.

I never claimed that the goal of cultural productions ought to be to immediately incite revolutionary action. What I claim is that they should resist dominant cultural forms in meaningful way, with some efficacy. Obviously, I do not think that Avatar does this. I have advanced a few examples of artists who do or did. The fact that you are not familiar with the majority of them is part of the problem I am trying to bring to light.

Communists, throw off your ideological chains! Listen to Schoenberg!