You are not convincing me of the counter argument by CLR James of popular culture not being the product of capitalist society
On the contrary, in the 40ties during a war industry, it seems more logical that women wearing trousers due to the fact they worked in factories where it is just more practical to wear them Even so apart from establishing a consumer oriented class system in which one's economical status can be measured by its ability to show off its fetishes - i.e. products- the art market flourished as never before resulting in the 50ties succesfull launch of pop art, whose instruments ( Pollock, de Konink , Rauschenberg and later in the - still more consumer oriented world - Andy Warhol) created an enormous flood of consumer artworks. It is examplary that both Rauschenberg and Warhol came from the advertizing industry So I cannot see in any way why - in his opinion - Adorno was wrong in his analysis Andreas Maria Jacobs w: http://www.nictoglobe.com w: http://burgerwaanzin.nl On 18 Dec 2010, at 06:05, Keith Hart <ke...@thememorybank.co.uk> wrote: > > Like Michael, I know what I like when it comes to art, but not always > why. But this exchange provides me with an unexpected opportunity to > post a reflection on the history of art and role of the ruling powers > in shaping public taste. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
