RE: ' Point is Benjamin is talking about western culture not world culture"
Precisely my point. Actually he is not even talking about "Western culture". He is only talking about Western culture *since the Renaissance *- though he himself does not seem to be aware of this limitation of his thinking. Without realizing it, he is in the grip of a view of art history which was well and truly in the realm of the problematical by the 1930s - and which is quite outmoded now. (One only has to go to any major art museum - or browse the shelves of any bookshop with a decent art book section - to see that.) DA On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
