000ooo000ooo Horkheimer and Adorno

My thought first thought upon reading "The Culture Industry" was that it could have been greatly reduced in length. The authors have just a few major points that they draw out for much longer than needed. This is a common practice in academia, where the culture tells us that longer pieces must be more in-depth and therefor better. Keeping in line with the culture, Horkheimer and Adorno make their piece nearly 30 pages. This just goes to show how deeply culture runs in us when a critique of culture still falls into its parameters.
One quote that I found particularly compelling can be found on the bottom of page 47 and onto page 48: "The great artists were never those whose works embodied style in its least fractured, most perfect form but those who adopted style as a rigor to set against the chaotic expression of suffering, as a negative truth. In the style of these works expression took on the strength without which existence is dissipated unheard. Even works which are called classical, like the music of Mozart, contain objective tendencies which resist the style they incarnate. Up to Schonberg and Picasso, great artists have been mistrustful of style, which at decisive points has guided them less than the logic of the subject matter."
I can tell that this quote is getting at one of the most important points in the piece - change and how it comes about. However, I am not sure I fully understand what is being suggested. I have two interpretations.
First, the authors could be saying that the culture industry makes it difficult for anything truly "new" to come about. This idea is reminiscent of Habermas. Culture is quick to label anything "new" and challenging as wrong, immoral, risky, etc. To break through this it takes the work of a genius like Mozart, Picasso, or Schonberg. These men were able to create something that was both new and aesthetically pleasing enough to break through the culture industry. This would be a significant point because the authors then go on to explain how new media forms attempt to dull the differences between different media and create a sort of "unified" media whose main goal is to stop people from thinking too much, greatly reducing the chances of someone coming up with the next industry breaking genre or artwork.
Another way I interpreted this was that in order to break through the culture industry one must "incarnate" a style, yet include subtle "objective tendencies which resist the style they incarnate". In other words, you can't come up with something that is entirely avant-garde because then it will either be labeled as such (and once its avant garde it fits comfortable into a cultural mode for this style) or it will be entirely rejected by people because it feels so unnatural.