In the historical context in which the book is written, new media such as radio and television had recently emerged into society. This media were not driven by, as apposed to old media such as magazines, e.g. a political party but by big industrial companies. This was why this distinction was important in the text, due to their theory about what they call "culture industry".
By and large the topic of this week was ok. I found it more interesting than last week, but it still didn't boost my interest level to the roof and I think this is mainly because of the format and content of the readings. I and other course friends constantly asked ourselves if there weren't any more modern or less philosophical text to read about critical media theory? Maybe one that is more linked to what we can recognise in our daily living? Surely there must be something that is more relatable than reading a text from the 1940s? Of course, there is a point of understanding the historical perspective and see the similarities back then and now, but to what extent? Personally, if I narrow the week down to one line describing what I've learned, it would be something like: "Some people might be and were critical to media. I should maybe be too" ...
I think we are studying the different theories in order to understand which approaches to understand media existed before. A thorough understanding of the theoretical aspects can help us in writing the thesis . As for the crtitical theory, I believe that it is applicable today. I think that the media are now a commodity, and we as consumers are part of the industry. In addition, the issues raised by other members of the Frankfurt School, are also interesting . For example, the problems of the consumer society and the definition of art.
SvaraRaderaYou are absolutely right about the relevance of the field and the fact that it is applicable to current times, but my point was that maybe we could have read something more recent and more modern? Personally, I think that reading a such contextually based and highly philosophical text is concentrating on aspects that draws more than it gains. Instead of only focusing on what is the red line throughout the text, I also had to focus on the historical aspects, which I think are partly relevant, but to what end? Was the medium for the main topic the right one for me? No, that's my critical view of this seminar readings, while the content is quite interesting.
SvaraRadera