Point is Benjamin is talking about western culture not world culture - this is why you need to be specific to his text to criticize it - Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:42:28 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > 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."
