I have thought, for some time now, that POPular Culture IS pernicious. I have even written some accounts of just how and why I hold this belief. None of those have been published yet---there would be, I am certain, push-back from several domains, especially those whose livelihood rests upon the popularity of pop culture (think: social media; dating web-sites and those communications(?) formats which permit everyone to have his/her voice). Let's face it: there is a lot of money involved in these enterprises and lots more for those whose real job is to scam any unsuspecting schlep who can be easily taken in. That said, I hope to see some other comments here after March 25.

Recently, I had made suggestions to PT, regarding treatment of mass/popular culture, and was advised to review some posts/shows including this one. After so doing,I retracted my comments, bowing to the approach and format of the blog, as designed. When revisiting this post, I noticed only one comment, mine, in 2018. Repeating a concern expressed in my last response to PT's general comments mail address, I 'll recap here. I mentioned awareness of one's surroundings. That faculty has suffered, IMHO, with the popularization of smart phones. Users of these wonderful devices are distracted. Selfies, for one example: people have fallen to their death because of absorption with picture-taking. Tragic and unnecessary. Traffic is also hazardous to the self-absorbed. The engrossed phone user may suddenly appear in the street already occupied by oncoming vehicles. If they did not see that coming, the outcome will not be favorable to the pedestrian. The same is true for other hazards such as obstructions and holes. So, my worry about these 'accidents' seems well-placed.

Along with my concerns about other dangerous distractions which diminish survivability. Or maybe I am exagerating?

I really enjoy your show. And I understand that you are exaggerating the complications of Adorno’s theories to engage an audience. However, I am an artist and a painting professor. and my teeth are grinding while you discuss the commodification of creativity. Yes it's out there. Yes some artist allow themselves to be commodified but this is the minority of artists. I REALLY WISH UOU HAD AN ARTIST ON YOUR SHOW.

Can we circumnavigate the negative impact of capitalism on art by funding our own creative expression in the form of art? Knowing that this is indeed possible, then does this dilute the quality of our work...if we aren't independently wealthy? If we are independently wealthy, then does this have moral and ethical implications for the sort of art we are capable of creating?

I suppose my fundamental question is, does form follow function? I mean, Marx had an ideal for society and, via Lenin and Stalin, it ended up becoming a totalitarian, centralized model of economics and government. Via imperialist capitalism (think France in southeast Asia in the early 20th century or Britain in Indonesia at that time), the mass of laboring humanity was essentially subservient to the contraptions of the ruling class and the forces of capitalism.

If capitalism has its own baked-in biases within a systemic loop, could it also not be said that other economic systems have their own biases and self-affirming feedbacks? And if so, where does the capitalist model fit into this spectrum?

A question--Does the theater of 16th or 17th century England, for example, differ much in terms of 'entertainment value' for the 'masses' than a modern day blockbuster? Sure, today we have technology that allows for mass production of popular entertainment, but what's the difference? A theater producer in the 16th century wanted to make profits as much as a movie producer does in the 20th.