RE:L "As for Derek Allen's claims about Benjamin's (and Hegel's) view of history, nothing could be farther from the truth. Neither of them have a linear conception of historical progression. "
You truly *have* to be joking. What could be more quintessentially linear than Hegels' view of the history of art - in its three stages - what are they? - symbolic, Classical and Romantic - and then art's demise? Benjamin's is just a sketchy version of something similar. R: ' And, although it's true that > Benjamin is only considering Western art -- thereby avoiding the pitfalls of > an Orientialism that begins with Schopenhauer -" Er ... what about the rest of world art? And what on earth has Schopenhauer to do with the present discussion? Re"The burden of critique, as > Saul Ostrow has pointed out, rests on Allen: he must demonstrate his claim, > not merely assert it." Which "claim" *precisely* did you have in mind that I haven't argued? (Saul keeps repeating this in a vague non-specific way - and at the same time carefully avoids adresssing my arguments. I hope you are not about to do the same...) RE: > (though we may now consider african masks, or the paleographs at Lascaux > 'art,' it's not clear that they were initially considered art by their > makers, nor is it clear that simply accepting them as art now isn't an > arbitrary retrospective gesture on our part). " It is quite clear that African masks were *not* considered art by their makers. We know nothing at all of Lascaux, as you must surely realise. (Why on earth is there this resistance to reading history, anthopology and archeology in aesthetcis? One would think it was banned literature or something!!) And what exactly is an "arbitrary retrospective gesture"? The fact that we now consider so many magnificent African masks, pieces of Buddhist sculpture, Mesoamerican figurines, Chinese wash drawings, etc etc etc as art? If so should we expel them from our art museums, close down the Musee du Quai Branly, for example, and throw all the stuff on the scrap heap, and just tell people they are being 'arbitrary' to admire it? After all, art begins with Duchamp doesn't it? (Or is it Warhol?) Judging by the queues at the Branly we might have a bit of persuading to do. But I suppose we could tell them it was all a ghastly mistake, and that they could still go to the Louvre.. DA http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 6:10 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm very late to this discussion, but I would nonetheless like to add a few > comments. > > First off, I think Kate Sullivan is right to point out that prints are works > of art, and not, even in Benjamin's sense, reproductions. That is, as > Sullivan points out, they still have an 'aura' (whatever that turns out to > be -- the place to start a serious discussion of this notion would be > Benjamin's little history of photography). One of Benjamin's goals, if I > may speak for him, is precisely to show the progressive, 'emancipatory' > potential of new technical modes of production (in this sense he is picking > up on Bourdieu's constant critique of 'formal equality,' which masks a > substantive inequality: everyone can visit the museum to see auratic works > of art, just as everyone can go to university, but this formal equality > masks the very real fact that the Uni and the Museum require a set of > background skills which are not readily available to low-income, > non-bourgeois families). Aura, then, is a manner of thematizing the > difference between formal equality and real inequality via the 'entrance > requirements' of contemporary art, which is functionally identical to the > relationship Benjamin wishes to draw out between 'cult value' and 'exchange > value' > > Now, the reason film, for instance, has no aura is due to the fact that > there is no qualitative distinction to be made between the 'original' and > the reproductions:' no matter where you see the film (in Berlin, New York, > Buenes Ares, etc) it's the same. That is to say, the experiences generated > by a particular work of art are no longer tied to a unique physical > location, or a particular object. Auratic works, then, are ones which > maintain a kind of qualitative distance from the observer (they are, as > Hermeneuticists like to say, a 'Thou' to my 'I' rather than mere equipment > [zuhanden] within a particular context of activity). this distance between > means and ends thus becomes the qualitative difference that differentiates > the 'proletariat disadvantage' I've outlined above. > > As for Derek Allen's claims about Benjamin's (and Hegel's) view of history, > nothing could be farther from the truth. Neither of them have a linear > conception of historical progression. That's fairly obvious (Benjamin's > notion of 'now-time' and the 'now of recognizability', are poised directly > against such a conception of history). And, although it's true that > Benjamin is only considering Western art -- thereby avoiding the pitfalls of > an Orientialism that begins with Schopenhauer -- I take it that his point > about the origins of art in magic and state power is just about right, > especially when considered in the light of Benjamin's theory of mimesis. I > see no problem here, since to call something that wasn't initially > considered to be art as art is something that Allen does all the time > (though we may now consider african masks, or the paleographs at Lascaux > 'art,' it's not clear that they were initially considered art by their > makers, nor is it clear that simply accepting them as art now isn't an > arbitrary retrospective gesture on our part). The burden of critique, as > Saul Ostrow has pointed out, rests on Allen: he must demonstrate his claim, > not merely assert it. > > As Hegel would say, everything that appears to us as being in-itself is > implicitly something for-us; the trick us to unpack the for-us in order to > understand how we can treat something as possessing certain properties 'in > itself.' I take Benjamin to be doing just that, albeit in a rather > non-Hegelian way). aura becomes a manner of identifying inequalities of > possible reception, which is thematized by certain modes of production, and > which highlights a series of transformative potentials. For as we will all > remember, uniqueness, greatness, and authenticity (purity) were all slogans > of national socialism. It had the same aura as artworks (Gesamtkunstwerke), > which was, among other things, one of the targets of Benjamin's essay. > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:34 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> A print is the work of art. The block is a preliminary-it isn't >> finished. >> So the print work of art is not a replica, not a copy, and each print >> stands on its own as a work of art. Anyone who has ever sat with a folder >> of >> great prints knows or learns at the time about their restricted >> exhibition, >> their cultural value-they certainly have an "aura". They even get >> special >> paper,in some cases made for them in particular. >> >> "...For the first time in the process of pictorial reproduction, >> photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions >> which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens...." >> >> Oh,fooey. When was this written? On H German the other day they were >> reviewing something which was partly about Benjamin's drug experimentation. >> The >> experimentation seemed to be around the time of inventing the aura. And >> no, >> Derek, whatever it is you just thought of, don't say it. >> KAte Sullivan >> >> >> >> ************** >> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for >> fuel-efficient used cars. >> (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
