Saul I've already done this. But you chose to ignore what I said. Remember my email about the non-existecne of the notion of art in so many cultures (including our own earlier). This blows a huge hole in Benjamin's thinking. More precisely it reveals it as historically myopic.
DA On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
