Something changes when an art form such as music can be reproduced and distributed in a capitalist society. People begin to view it's function and purpose differently. When music can be widely distributed it becomes a commodity. The ability to make money in turn gives music a new function that it did not have before. Prior to this, music had a more unique function as it's purpose was in and of itself. One could indulge in it for it's own sake, and not for any sort of monetary value. Music gains the ability to make money and becomes associated with images and advertisements, and can even begin to provide people with identities. When music takes on this new function, it can become a fetish for the consumer. They no longer actively listen to the music and instead only crave more of what is familiar and accessible, and in turn more of what is familiar is distributed. This constant indulgence of a fetish can inhibit the consumer's ability to actively listen to the music they consume, and pay more attention to the image or identity associated with it.

This new fetish aspect that music takes on when distributed in a capitalist society causes people to no longer listen to the music for it's own sake, which requires actively listening to the content. The music that is the most accessible and advertised is created and distributed for the purpose of money, and not for the purpose of itself. People become attached to the familiar images associated with music and will identify with it, liking that which they most recognize. Since musical fetishism will cause people to demand more of the familiar, the music that will be more widely distributed is light music that does not require active listening. Any serious form of music that is not familiar or cannot be listened to passively is not as heavily consumed by the general public, and therefore not as widely distributed or as accessible. Technical talent is no longer seen as a crucial aspect to elevate a musician in status. Instead a music industry is created, and to satisfy the musical fetishism of the general public they continue to distribute more of what is familiar, gaining monetary value in the process. This causes an increase in sales, and a decrease in variety. In turn this process makes light music the most accessible form of music and passive listening the most common approach to music.

According to Adorno, a musical fetish will cause one to only listen passively, and this in turn will lead to something called regressive listening. Regressive listening occurs when music serves a function other then simply being music and people begin to lose their ability to actively listen to it's content, instead paying attention to identities or images associated with it. As people lose the ability to actively listen, their ability to communicate will decline as well. Regressive listening is a product of musical fetishism, which occurs when music becomes a commodity and it's function changes. Consumers will indulge in it for reasons other then it's content as music itself.

Much of Adorno's argument makes sense to me. When music becomes associated with images and advertisements people begin to identify with it. It is evident when you see someone who only wears merchandise of a certain musical group, or a musician who only plays one brand of instrument. People will often listen to music familiar to them as well, as many associate autobiographical moments with certain songs. However, I do not believe every instance of listening to music for a purpose other then itself necessarily indicates passive listening or regressive listening, as long as an unhealthy fetish is not formed.

For Sigmund Freud, art is interesting for the mind of the artist. Through a painting one can analyze the mind of the painter, and through a work of literature one can analyze the mind of the writer. In the content of their work lies a map of their psychology, and they are always on the line between normal and neurotic. Their artwork arises from feelings they repress, an expression of the creators unresolved neurotic problems, usually sexual. In order to create their material the writer has to imagine, and this is something similar to child play.

Child play occurs when a child takes material from everyday reality and begins to imagine and reorganize it in a way more pleasing to them, and they are not ashamed or hesitant to do so. They create a world of fantasy separate from reality, and openly indulge in it. When the child grows into adulthood they become less willing to engage such behavior as it is less socially acceptable, and they instead must find a substitute in using their imagination to daydream. Daydreaming is the adult version of child play, a way that cannot be observed. According to Freud, adults engaging in daydreaming have not fully matured psychologically, and have unsatisfied desires they may not fully realize. The fantasized events taking place in a daydream usually include the satisfaction of a wish, whether that is erotic or the fulfillment of ambition or a mixture of the two.

In literature the writer will come across their material by conveying the fantastic worlds conceived in their daydreams. The most widely read stories will usually portray some sort of hero in a sympathetic light, and this hero represents a manifestation of the ego. The events in most stories follow through to fulfill the fantasy of the writer, and through literature the writer can day dream and express their fantasies in a socially accepted manner. It also allows people to relate the literature to their own fantasies through the characters portrayed in the story, rather then through the writer personally. The reader can indulge in a daydream and fantasize in an accepted manner as well.

Carl Jung agreed with Freud that one can analyze the psychology of a writer through their writing, but what is more interesting is to analyze the psychology of the literature itself. A visionary work of literature is encoded with a message for humanity, and it can be analyzed on it's own without taking the writer into account. These great works are not inspired by everyday life but instead describe something unlike any experience. They transcend all experiences at a human level, which implies that they are touching on something deeper. Jung claimed that these works are not products of repressed feelings or daydreams but instead they are the result of the writer tapping into a source called the "collective unconscious".

In Jungian psychology, the ego is the conscious self and the personal unconscious holds the thoughts we are not consciously aware of. However, there is a third aspect to the human psyche as well, and this is made up of the collective unconscious. This can be thought of as an inherited unconscious, a reservoir of our experiences as humans, knowledge that is not directly accessible to your conscious self. The human psyche contains traces of it's evolution, and it is built to experience the world in a certain way. This is evident in instinctive reactions that while helpful for survival are not consciously made or fully understood. The collective conscious explains why certain mythological symbols are seen to transcend cultural bounds, and this is because of the archetypes contained in the collective unconscious. These archetypes can be seen as collective images or stereotypes and unlearned tendencies that provide a role for a person to fulfill. There is no fixed number of archetypes, and some can even overlap. A mother archetype is recognized by an infant upon birth, and the person fulfilling this role is seen as a nurturing caregiver. The infant comes into the world with an inherent ability to recognize this archetype. It is from the collective unconscious that visionary artists come across the material, and because the collective unconscious is something all people currently take part in, any visionary work of art will have something to say about the collective unconscious of the time the art was created. For Jung, it is this message about the collective unconscious that provides more value in analyzing great works of literature themselves rather then the person who wrote it. By delving into this aspect of the psyche the visionary artist can bring otherwise undetectable messages about humanity to the surface.

For me, Jung's theory about the collective unconscious is very inviting, as it gives the artist a special and unique ability. Great works of art should be valued for their messages as well. However, I agree with Freud that daydreaming and expression of repressed feelings can be the inspiration for the artist as well. I don't think the two arguments have to go against each other, they only seem like two different approaches to analyze literature. Freud places more emphasis on the writer, while Jung pays more attention the writing. These two theories can be complimentary.