No, I don't think so - instead I think you first need to show me where your impressions are rooted in Benjamin's views (what he wrote not what he didn't write about) and then we will discuss your interpretation of his views and ideas - so one solid example - rather than your experience of sitting in a seminar - parse one idea on your own and show us your critical ability Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:10:32 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > I have an idea. You show me where what I have said is wrong. > > They are most definitely critcisms - and respond to your own summary > of Benjamin in fact. Though I have read him myself and I know what I > say is relevant (to the extent what he says is clear). > > I think it is a pity Benjamin is inflicted on students. I have sat in > seminars where his work has been discussed. and have seen first hand > the confusion he generates. He is one of those writers who can gives > aesthetics a bad name. > > DA > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> These are not criticism - it makes no specific point - you would first have >> to demonstrate that your characterizations actually stem from Benjamin's >> work - >> Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies >> The Cleveland Institute of Art >> >> >> >> >>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:06:23 +1000 >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Presence >>> >>> Ah the good old 'I have undergrads who could do better' answer. >>> >>> But what about responding to the specific criticisms I have made? >>> >>> In a way I am glad this topic has come up. I had never really >>> consciously recognised before just how limited Benjamin's outlook is, >>> especially from a historcial point of view. It's quite surprising in a >>> way, given that he was writing the 1930s and so much was known by that >>> time about the attitudes of early and other cultures towards the >>> objects we now call art. Malraux was certainly keenly aware of it and >>> had integrated it well and truly into his thinking by then. Benjamin >>> is still wallowing around in a basically 19th century "linear" view of >>> history - not surprising really, I guess, since he is obviously stiil >>> so much in the shadow of Marx. >>> >>> DA >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> And this passes for a analysis and a polemeic - please I hav eunder grads >>>> who can do better than this >>>> Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies >>>> The Cleveland Institute of Art >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:10:55 +1000 >>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: Presence >>>>> >>>>> RE: 'Benjamin used the word "aura" to refer to the sense of awe and >>>>> reverence one >>>>> presumably experienced in the presence of unique works of art. According >>>>> to >>>>> Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in >>>>> external >>>>> attributes such as its known line of ownership, its restricted exhibition, >>>>> its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. Aura is thus >>>>> indicative >>>>> of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois >>>>> structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious >>>>> or >>>>> secular) ritual.' >>>>> >>>>> (1) I like 'presumably' experienced... >>>>> >>>>> (2) In 'primitive', and 'feudal' times there were no 'works of art'. >>>>> Slight glitch in Benjamin's historical analysis there. >>>>> >>>>> (3) Why should any of this have anything to do with 'structures of >>>>> power' ? As I recall, there is nothing in Benjamin to demonstrate >>>>> this. (But what the heck, it sounds classy. And there are nice Marxist >>>>> resonances - without actually having to invoke Marx...) >>>>> >>>>> (4) Re:"such as its known line of ownership, its restricted >>>>> exhibition, its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. " >>>>> >>>>> This is so hopelessly shaky historically speaking. For vast stretches >>>>> of history and for large numbers of objects we now regard as art, the >>>>> question of 'line of ownership' was entirely irrelevant. Ditto the >>>>> notion of 'exhibition.' The statues at Chartres were not on >>>>> 'exhibition', or Buddhist sculpture or so much else. That is Western >>>>> post-Renaissance thinking. Authenticity?? The very notion would not >>>>> have made sense. Ditto a million times over for 'cultural value'. >>>>> >>>>> Benjamin's' outlook is so obviously limited by the conventional >>>>> leftist thinking of his times... >>>>> >>>>> There is more to say but I'll leave it at that. >>>>> >>>>> DA >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> Benjamin used the word "aura" to refer to the sense of awe and reverence >>>>>> one >>>>>> presumably experienced in the presence of unique works of art. According >>>>>> to >>>>>> Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in >>>>>> external >>>>>> attributes such as its known line of ownership, its restricted >>>>>> exhibition, >>>>>> its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. Aura is thus >>>>>> indicative >>>>>> of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois >>>>>> structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious >>>>>> or >>>>>> secular) ritual. With the advent of art's mechanical reproducibility, and >>>>>> the development of forms such as film in which there is no actual >>>>>> original, >>>>>> the experience is freed from place and ritual. "For the first time in >>>>>> world >>>>>> history," Benjamin wrote, "mechanical reproduction emancipates the work >>>>>> of >>>>>> art from its parasitical dependence on ritual." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Derek Allan >>>>> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Derek Allan >>> http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>> believed to be clean. >> >>
