<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hilo Hero: T.W. Adorno</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hilobrow.com/2009/09/11/hilo-hero-t-w-adorno/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hilobrow.com/2009/09/11/hilo-hero-t-w-adorno/</link>
	<description>Middlebrow is not the solution</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:00:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Glenn</title>
		<link>http://hilobrow.com/2009/09/11/hilo-hero-t-w-adorno/comment-page-1/#comment-525</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:59:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilobrow.com/?p=4215#comment-525</guid>
		<description>From our vantage point, you can make a case for the subversiveness and complexity of just about anything from the 1940s. And of course, back then Adorno was arguing about Mickey Mouse with Walter Benjamin, who thought Mickey was very subversive. The point is: Adorno paid attention to pop culture, and if he judged something unique and eccentric, he liked it; if it seemed stamped out of some master mold in a culture-extruding factory, he didn&#039;t. He had rigorous standards, yes, but they weren&#039;t snobbish highbrow vs. lowbrow standards. 

PS: I like &lt;em&gt;Ninotchka&lt;/em&gt;, but I get your point about it showing a different aspect of Garbo. Still, Adorno isn&#039;t saying he likes Garbo because she&#039;s a great thespian; of course she&#039;s a hoofer like Rooney. But she&#039;s unlike run-of-the-mill, mass-produced movie stars.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From our vantage point, you can make a case for the subversiveness and complexity of just about anything from the 1940s. And of course, back then Adorno was arguing about Mickey Mouse with Walter Benjamin, who thought Mickey was very subversive. The point is: Adorno paid attention to pop culture, and if he judged something unique and eccentric, he liked it; if it seemed stamped out of some master mold in a culture-extruding factory, he didn&#8217;t. He had rigorous standards, yes, but they weren&#8217;t snobbish highbrow vs. lowbrow standards. </p>
<p>PS: I like <em>Ninotchka</em>, but I get your point about it showing a different aspect of Garbo. Still, Adorno isn&#8217;t saying he likes Garbo because she&#8217;s a great thespian; of course she&#8217;s a hoofer like Rooney. But she&#8217;s unlike run-of-the-mill, mass-produced movie stars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Cavanaugh</title>
		<link>http://hilobrow.com/2009/09/11/hilo-hero-t-w-adorno/comment-page-1/#comment-524</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Cavanaugh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilobrow.com/?p=4215#comment-524</guid>
		<description>Disney v. Fleischer I get. But couldn&#039;t you make a better case that Rooney was actually the more complex and subversive figure: A manifestly short and plain-looking superstar whose charm (if you&#039;re charmed by it) derived from his overbearing, non-heroic personality and whose mysterious popular appeal depended on a certain goofy sense of self, as opposed to a beauty whose charisma is based on a non-ironic submission to the conventions of prewar European cafe society? Plus, by the time this was written &lt;i&gt;Ninotchka&lt;/i&gt; had already been made.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disney v. Fleischer I get. But couldn&#8217;t you make a better case that Rooney was actually the more complex and subversive figure: A manifestly short and plain-looking superstar whose charm (if you&#8217;re charmed by it) derived from his overbearing, non-heroic personality and whose mysterious popular appeal depended on a certain goofy sense of self, as opposed to a beauty whose charisma is based on a non-ironic submission to the conventions of prewar European cafe society? Plus, by the time this was written <i>Ninotchka</i> had already been made.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Glenn</title>
		<link>http://hilobrow.com/2009/09/11/hilo-hero-t-w-adorno/comment-page-1/#comment-523</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilobrow.com/?p=4215#comment-523</guid>
		<description>Hi, Tim. Always good to hear from you.

Adorno is not being asymmetrical or illogical. Donald Duck is a Disney cartoon figure; Rooney is (in Adorno&#039;s opinion) a Disney cartoon figure who also happens to be a human actor. To &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hermenaut.com/dev/a99.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quote&lt;/a&gt; Scott Hamrah: &quot;Which brings us back to Mickey Rooney, the shriveled, diminutive star of &lt;em&gt;The Private Lives of Adam and Eve&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;How to Stuff a Wild Bikini&lt;/em&gt;. The sight of him standing before a huge frame-blowup of a heel crushing a mouse begs an obvious question: if you were as close to a mouse in the class Mammalia as Rooney is, wouldn&#039;t you be nervous, too? This is after all the guy for whom Walt Disney supposedly named his signature rodent.&quot;

Garbo, in Adorno&#039;s opinion, wasn&#039;t cranked out of the Hollywood/Disney machine (I think he also hated Victor Mature); she&#039;s unique, eccentric. Same goes for Betty Boop, among cartoon characters; he probably also liked the first Popeye cartoons, but I&#039;m just guessing. 

From our vantage point, Betty Boop and early Donald Duck might not seem that different. But at the time, you had to decide which side you were on. This is the background of Kim Deitch&#039;s terrific graphic novel &lt;em&gt;The Boulevard of Broken Dreams&lt;/em&gt;...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Tim. Always good to hear from you.</p>
<p>Adorno is not being asymmetrical or illogical. Donald Duck is a Disney cartoon figure; Rooney is (in Adorno&#8217;s opinion) a Disney cartoon figure who also happens to be a human actor. To <a href="http://www.hermenaut.com/dev/a99.shtml" rel="nofollow">quote</a> Scott Hamrah: &#8220;Which brings us back to Mickey Rooney, the shriveled, diminutive star of <em>The Private Lives of Adam and Eve</em> and <em>How to Stuff a Wild Bikini</em>. The sight of him standing before a huge frame-blowup of a heel crushing a mouse begs an obvious question: if you were as close to a mouse in the class Mammalia as Rooney is, wouldn&#8217;t you be nervous, too? This is after all the guy for whom Walt Disney supposedly named his signature rodent.&#8221;</p>
<p>Garbo, in Adorno&#8217;s opinion, wasn&#8217;t cranked out of the Hollywood/Disney machine (I think he also hated Victor Mature); she&#8217;s unique, eccentric. Same goes for Betty Boop, among cartoon characters; he probably also liked the first Popeye cartoons, but I&#8217;m just guessing. </p>
<p>From our vantage point, Betty Boop and early Donald Duck might not seem that different. But at the time, you had to decide which side you were on. This is the background of Kim Deitch&#8217;s terrific graphic novel <em>The Boulevard of Broken Dreams</em>&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Cavanaugh</title>
		<link>http://hilobrow.com/2009/09/11/hilo-hero-t-w-adorno/comment-page-1/#comment-522</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Cavanaugh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilobrow.com/?p=4215#comment-522</guid>
		<description>I was one of the questioners, so thanks. I do remember Donald Duck&#039;s name coming up in &lt;i&gt;D of E&lt;/i&gt; (despite my disappointment in finding that the co-author was not &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horkheimer:_Star_Gazer&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Star Hustler Jack Horkheimer&lt;/a&gt;), but had forgotten that Adorno also knew the names of other pop culture figures. 

I didn&#039;t do so hot on my SATs, and I know symmetry and logic are comforting bourgeois self-deceptions, but I&#039;m still not getting the parallel: 

Mickey Rooney is to Garbo as Donald Duck is to Betty Boop. 

Is it that A = boys and B = girls? Color vs. black and white?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was one of the questioners, so thanks. I do remember Donald Duck&#8217;s name coming up in <i>D of E</i> (despite my disappointment in finding that the co-author was not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horkheimer:_Star_Gazer" rel="nofollow">Star Hustler Jack Horkheimer</a>), but had forgotten that Adorno also knew the names of other pop culture figures. </p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t do so hot on my SATs, and I know symmetry and logic are comforting bourgeois self-deceptions, but I&#8217;m still not getting the parallel: </p>
<p>Mickey Rooney is to Garbo as Donald Duck is to Betty Boop. </p>
<p>Is it that A = boys and B = girls? Color vs. black and white?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Glenn</title>
		<link>http://hilobrow.com/2009/09/11/hilo-hero-t-w-adorno/comment-page-1/#comment-521</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilobrow.com/?p=4215#comment-521</guid>
		<description>In response to questions, here&#039;s a quote. 

Theodor Adorno And Max Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment As Mass Deception” (from &lt;em&gt;Dialectic of Enlightenment&lt;/em&gt;, 1944): In a passage that begins by agreeing with Tocqueville&#039;s analysis that liberal capitalism might become an insidious form of bondage for worker and capitalist alike, Adorno (who scholars claim is primarily responsible for this essay) writes that &quot;the misplaced love of the common people for the wrong which is done them ... calls for Mickey Rooney in preference to the tragic Garbo, for Donald Duck instead of Betty Boop.&quot; 

This is not a rejection of all pop culture; he&#039;s criticizing Disneyfied pop culture only.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to questions, here&#8217;s a quote. </p>
<p>Theodor Adorno And Max Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment As Mass Deception” (from <em>Dialectic of Enlightenment</em>, 1944): In a passage that begins by agreeing with Tocqueville&#8217;s analysis that liberal capitalism might become an insidious form of bondage for worker and capitalist alike, Adorno (who scholars claim is primarily responsible for this essay) writes that &#8220;the misplaced love of the common people for the wrong which is done them &#8230; calls for Mickey Rooney in preference to the tragic Garbo, for Donald Duck instead of Betty Boop.&#8221; </p>
<p>This is not a rejection of all pop culture; he&#8217;s criticizing Disneyfied pop culture only.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
