OSCARS
The relationship between art, power and the market has always been complex. From the propaganda systems of the twentieth century to the modern entertainment industry, cultural production has profoundly influenced the collective consciousness of societies. The crucial question is not only who produces art, but also who consumes it and with what degree of critical awareness.
In the age of global communication, responsibility increasingly shifts toward the citizen and the viewer. Critical thinking, aesthetic education and the search for authentic creativity may well be the most important counterbalances in an era in which culture risks becoming nothing more than a commodity.
Many are the modern afflictions. Two are the most severe. Both are products of the “Market Economy”: commercial journalism and equally commercial art. “One hand washes the other and both wash the face.” In this case, both serve profit, hand in hand with fame, glamour and grandeur.
Misinformation, deception, fraud, confusion, sexism, distraction, and the conquest of the American Dream—distortions and deformities born from the same unhealthy womb. The exceptions are counted on the fingers of one hand. And the guardians of true journalism and beneficial art are equally rare—appearing like bright comets that cannot truly shine in an otherwise dark sky.
Taking as a starting point the recent Academy Awards ceremony in Hollywood—one of the largest graveyards of cinematic debris—we move to the moldy, sofa-bound private life of the “person next door,” saturated with the odor of the cultural waste produced by Netflix. In recent years the harsh industry of spectacle and entertainment has managed to enthrone itself permanently in our living rooms through this tool—an executioner of empathy, of timeless values of life, of sensitivity, and of aesthetic refinement; even of the healthy rest that imagination once offered.
Let us turn to history. From the earliest days of the Nazi regime in Germany, the central pillar of Goebbels’ propaganda followed two decisive tactics in order to ideologically conquer the population. First, a radio receiver was placed in every German home. Immediately afterward, through promises and incentives, figures sympathetic to the regime were elevated within the artistic world—people who would dominate theaters, cinema screens and concert halls in the years that followed.
How else do you imagine that an entire nation, within only a few years, could transform into one of history’s greatest monsters, an enemy of both Nature and Humanity?
Today the new forms of brutality, inhumanity, egocentrism, sexism and unnatural living do not need the old weapons of the Nazis in order to prevail across the globe. The “Mecca of cinema,” Hollywood, now possesses far more modern instruments of mass influence. They are the by-products of the entertainment industry itself. The famous Western civilization seems to devour its own poisoned flesh with hedonistic appetite.
Diotima:
The debate surrounding the modern entertainment industry and its role in shaping social consciousness is far from new. From cinema to digital streaming platforms, mass culture has evolved into one of the most powerful mechanisms of cultural influence in the contemporary world. This phenomenon attracted the attention of the thinkers of the Frankfurt School, who sought to understand how art and entertainment could be transformed into products of mass consumption.
Philosophers Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer introduced the concept of the “culture industry” in their influential work Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944). With this term they described the tendency of modern societies to produce cultural goods—films, music, radio programs and later television—in much the same way that industrial goods are produced. The aim is no longer solely artistic creation but also commercial success, mass consumption and the reproduction of a particular lifestyle.
According to this perspective, mass culture tends to standardize aesthetic experience. Despite the apparent diversity of choices available to audiences, many works follow similar narrative structures, aesthetic formulas and commercial patterns. The impression of diversity often conceals the repetition of the same cultural model.
This discussion is frequently linked to the historical experience of propaganda in the twentieth century. In Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda, recognized very early the immense power of mass communication. The widespread distribution of inexpensive radio receivers, the use of cinema and the promotion of artists aligned with the regime became key instruments for shaping public opinion. This historical example revealed how deeply media and artistic production can influence collective consciousness.
Nevertheless, critics of mass culture do not claim that the contemporary film industry is identical to such totalitarian systems. The comparison is mainly used to highlight the enormous influence that communication media can exercise in shaping values, perceptions and cultural norms.
In the contemporary world this influence is particularly visible through the global cultural reach of Hollywood and through digital distribution platforms such as Netflix. Major cinematic events like the Academy Awards also function as symbolic institutions within this system, promoting particular trends, narratives and aesthetic values while simultaneously celebrating artistic achievement.
Thus the debate over mass culture remains open. On one side stand those who argue that the commercialization of art leads to cultural uniformity and a weakening of critical thought. On the other side are those who believe that modern media expand access to art and allow creative expression to reach millions of people across the globe.
The tension between artistic creation and the industrial production of culture ultimately defines one of the central paradoxes of modern civilization. Within this landscape, critical thinking, aesthetic education and an active, discerning audience remain essential if societies wish to shape a richer cultural future.