Bringing Philosophy to Mass Art

What is Mass Art?

We would probably have a difficult time distinguishing between what is—and is not—mass art. That is, most of us would probably not be able to identify the particular characteristics of mass art. Therefore, to better understand what it is, we must first be able to identify the qualities of mass art.

To begin, we must first recognize that mass art should not be understood as the art of the masses. Although mass art is consumed by a large—or mass—audience, we should not conclude that there is a class distinction among those who consume mass art. Thus, if we cannot understand mass art in terms of those who consume it, let’s examine the structural characteristics that distinguish artwork as mass art (Carroll).

According to Carroll’s inquiry into the nature of mass art, there are several distinct structural features that are characteristic of mass art. These characteristics include: (1) the application of mass technologies in producing and distributing the artwork; (2) the utilization of formal and/or stylistic devices that allow the artwork to be easily understood by a mass audience without any formal education or coaching; and (3) that the artwork has some features that attract a mass audience. In the following paragraphs I will explain these characteristics in more depth.

The Characteristics of Mass Art:
In the course of human civilization, mass art is a recent phenomenon. Although there have been various forms of popular and mass consumed folk art throughout the ages, these artifacts cannot be considered mass art because one of the fundamental characteristics of mass art, is the application of mass technologies in producing and distributing the artwork. Thus, before industrialization and the invention of modern technologies—like the printing press, radio, cinema, or television—mass art never existed (Carroll).

As a result, mass art is a phenomenon that developed and emerged in the specific historical context of mass societies. Therefore, we should understand that mass art developed and emerged along with the rise of capitalism, urbanization and industrialization that gave rise to these societies. And, we should keep in mind that mass art is meant for the specific use within mass societies (Carroll).

In addition, mass art must also be easily understood by a large audience. Consequentially, mass art will often employ formal and/or stylistic devices that make it easily intelligible to a mass audience. These devices facilitate mass consumption by ‘framing’ the artwork in a way that is familiar to large audiences without any formal education or coaching (Carroll).

The backbeat of music is a great example of a device that makes mass art intelligible to a large untutored audience. As Carroll points out, “Rock and Roll music, in addition to its harmonic simplicity, employs a readily detectable backbeat that helps organize the rest of the sound”. This backbeat structures rock music in a way that most people can easily tap their foot, nod their head, or dance to music they have never heard before. Thus, the backbeat of rock music allows a large audience to quickly and easily consume the artwork.

On top of these fundamental characteristics, mass art must also draw a large audience. Accordingly, mass art will usually contain some features that will excite our interest in order to elicit mass engagement.

For example, mass art will often contain themes that are common among large populations, like love. Although the affects that are produced in the audience—that listens to a love song or watches a romantic movie—may be critiqued as generic, it is these very affects that draw large audiences to mass art. In other words, mass art is often very effective in drawing a large audience because it communicates on the lowest common denominator. That is, nearly everyone can relate to the themes and issues that are addressed in mass art, because it has a broad appeal.

Avant-garde Art:
In addition to understanding the three characteristics of mass art, it’s also helpful to familiarize ourselves with avant-garde art, because it’s the polar opposite of mass art. Its name alone, avant, tells us that this type of art is opposed to mass art, because it requires an avant (i.e. advanced) understanding to comprehend this type of media. As Carroll points out, this type of art is “in advance of the main body; it is the leading edge, leaving many of the rest of us behind”.

Where mass art aims to communicate to a large audience, avant-garde aims to make consumption and comprehension difficult. Often times, the goal of avant-garde art is to assault “what it conceives to be the aesthetic, intellectual, and moral complacency of the general run of humanity” (Carroll).

Mentioning avant-garde is crucial when discussing mass art because the existence of one definitely necessitates the existence of the other. For instance, the definition of mass art is the opposite of the definition of avant-garde art, and visa-versa.

The Criticism and Celebrations of Mass Art:

To better explain how mass art is important in our lives, it’s also helpful to consider some general critiques and celebrations of mass art portrayed in A Philosophy of Mass Art.

Carroll observes several recurring themes in the criticisms of mass art. These include: “that mass artwork is formulaic, not unique; that it is a commodity, and therefore neither is it disconnected from society and practical concerns, nor an active response from spectators; and that the responses it does elicit are ‘canned’ (i.e., generic) and not unique”. Conversely, Carroll points out that resistance to mass art, based on these themes, is grounded in flawed theories of artwork—namely those theories based on the aesthetic theory of Immanuel Kant—which “employ a conceptual framework that is completely alien to the task [of evaluating mass art]”. Other times, flawed criticisms are based on Plato's concern—found in The Republic—about the detrimental affect that artwork has on one’s emotional development (Carroll).

In breaking down the criticisms of mass art, Carroll illustrates several ways that Kantian aesthetic theory is misused. For example, some critics employ Kantian aesthetic theory to argue that real artwork should be unique and “[forge] a law unto itself, rather than being tethered by determinate concepts or purposes or rules” (Carroll). As a result, these critics find mass art unoriginal, and argue that its unoriginality subverts autonomy.

These critics go on to hail avant-garde art because they believe—by virtue of difficult consumption—it promotes disinterested autonomy by forcing free aesthetic response. Conversely, Carroll argues that it’s not the object of art that is responsible for creating a disinterested and autonomous response. Rather, the disinterested and autonomous consumption of artwork dependent on the consumer.

After taking on the critics of mass art, Carroll goes on to critique the flawed arguments of those who celebrate it. In general, those who celebrate mass art believe that it can elicit active spectatorship and critical reflection. Although mass art certainly does have these capacities, those who celebrate it often take the affects of mass art too far.

For example, Carroll criticizes Walter Benjamin who thinks that mass art can change perceptions. Although Carroll agrees that consumers of mass art are actively engaged in the media, he finds it simply implausible that any kind of art could "change human biology at the level of sense perception". Instead, Carroll argues that it’s more likely that pre-existing skills will be activated in the consumption of artwork, rather than enhancing analytical skills or creating cognitive and perceptual abilities that are more penetrating.

The Importance of Mass Art:

Now that we have a better understanding of mass art, it’s time to explain why mass art is important.

After reviewing the criticisms of mass art, it would be unacceptable to side with the critics and categorically deny the importance of mass art. As illustrated in Carroll’s critique, there is no reason to conclude that the viewers of mass art have their autonomy subverted by consuming artwork that is not unique or difficult to consume.

On the other hand, it would be equally unacceptable to side with those who celebrate mass art, and hail it as intrinsically valuable and important. Although audiences are certainly attracted and engaged by mass art, it’s improbable that it could cause people to acquire new analytic or perceptual skills.

Thus, the importance of mass art must rest somewhere between these two extremes. To understand what this middle ground might look like, let’s build off the third characteristic of mass art—which requires that it has some features that excite and attract a large audience—and Carroll’s suggestion that mass art activates those skills which we already have. If these aspects of Carroll’s philosophy are combined, we would wind up saying something like: ‘when features in mass art excite and attract our consumption, we are likely to respond to the artwork in a way that activates our pre-existing skills’. And, I think it’s fair to presume that the pre-existing skills which are activated by consuming mass art are directed toward the specific features that excited and attracted us to consume it.

For example, earlier in this essay love was discussed as a common feature in mass art that excites and attracts large audiences, and latter it was suggested that pre-existing analytic skills are most likely to be activated—rather than created—during the consumption of mass art. If we combine these two parts of the essay together, we find that the consumer of mass art, who is excited and attracted to the theme of love, is likely to have pre-existing analytic skills activated toward this theme. While having one’s analytic skills activated and engaged in the theme of love, the consumer of mass art is likely to be learning something—probably something about themselves. For instance, a person could be learning about: their own love, the love they would like to have, or about something that should be avoided while pursuing or being loved. Thus, we can say that mass art is important in one way because it provides us with an opportunity to better understand ourselves—by activating our pre-existing skills toward the features that excite and attract our consumption of mass art.

Building off my theory about the importance of mass art, I think that it’s also fair to suggest that mass art can encourage and facilitate the viewer to engage in critical reflection about issues and topics that concern them. This occurs when the viewer project themselves into the artwork. Often times this is accomplished when mass art is organized and conveyed through the structure of a narrative story—which helps a large audience easily consume the artwork without formal education or coaching. Because it’s fairly easy to get caught up in mass art that is conveyed through a story, the viewers will often project themselves into the artwork and learn something about themselves by relating to one—or a number—of the characters in the story.

In sum, mass art is important because it activates pre-existing analytic skills, and invites us to apply these skills in ways that help us learn about ourselves.

Bringing Philosophy to Mass Art:

In response to my argument about the importance of mass art, one might be troubled because the degree to which a person learns about themselves—through the consumption of mass art—can significantly differ between one viewer and the next. Although this is certainly an accurate observation, it does not diminish my argument for the importance of mass art, however, it does point out a question that should be addressed.

The question: how can we enhance the amount we learn from mass art? To answer this question, I advocate the study of philosophy.

Philosophy, like mass art, will not alter one’s perceptions on a biological level, but it will certainly activate one’s pre-existing analytic skills. In addition, studying philosophy can also help one develop new analytic skills that will help the student of philosophy see things from a number of perspectives.

To demonstrate how philosophy can enhance the amount we learn from mass art, I invite and encourage you to read the following essays on the lyrics of Jack Johnson. In each essay I contemplate a philosophical question or issue found in Johnson’s lyrics, summarize the work of a philosopher who addresses the same issue, and provide practical suggestions on how to overcome these philosophical issues when they arise in our own lives. I’m sure that your pre-existing analytical skills will be exercised by reading these essays, and hope that you walk away from these essays with new analytic skills that help you see yourself and the world from new perspectives.

Conclusion:

After arguing for the importance of mass art and describing what can be gained through the study of philosophy, it’s easy to see why I advocate bringing philosophy to mass art. On one hand, mass art engages us through interest sparking themes and invites us to activate pre-existing analytic skills in a way that encourage us to learn about ourselves. On the other hand, the study of philosophy enhances our analytic skills, which in turn, enable us to see the world and ourselves from new perspectives. Together, the study of philosophy complements the important function that mass art plays in our lives. The function of engaging our analytic skills and helping us learn about ourselves.