Huyssen discussed the function and authenticity of pop based on cultural theory and its reproducibility, while Frith explored the shortcuts technology provides when creating music and how it can damage or create authenticity. Huyssen simply disagrees that pop was to be a democratization of art because of corporate uses, examined through defining art as a commodity with an economic and social value based on the work of Adorno, and Frith claims that the accessibility of technology was used by both listener and corporations to define authenticity. However, Huyssen poses the dilemma of pop art in Germany, where it was used for anti-authoritarian revolt. This aligns with Marcuse’s cultural theory of utopianism, where “the utopia to a better life express in bourgeois art need only be taken at its word” (Huyssen 81). This means the appeal of pop art in the Federal Republic was through its social critique, where its images were used to mockingly of the joys of everyday life.
Frith claims that the technology is used by both listener and corporations to define authenticity, while Huyssen states that the use of technology to reproduce art nullifies the function and authenticity of the art. This is found in the example of recording live concerts and copying music on empty cassette tapes, where the “record industry itself has treated home taping as the source of all its troubles” because they claimed they were used to acquire music illicitly (Frith 274). Another example is the accessibility of cheaper equipment that produced genres like rock. However, Huyssen does concede that the indoctrination of Warhol’s work by capitalist interests serve its function of his work because of its social critique through cliché, bright colors used on normal photos and items. The mediums of technology are passively mentioned by Huyssen beyond reproducibility, which is a key distinction that is necessary when discussing the authenticity of art. This is important because the tools used to produce pop arguably shape the authenticity and intention of the piece. This is where these two authors differ, but Frith failed to differentiate between the use of reproduction technology and performance-enhancing technology. Huyssen altogether vilifies the use of technology in art because of the nature of capitalism, where only the powerful can dictate the function and authenticity of art. Because of its reproducibility, “Pop, however, art became profane, concrete and suitable for mass reception” (Huyssen 79). To Huyssen, function is more important than the technology used to create the art. It is difficult to compare the pieces to one another because Frith analyzes the impact of authenticity which technology has on pop, while Huyssen engages with the economic value of pop and its function of social critique is diminished through reproducibility.
WC: 450
Carson's Blog 