" You're getting into irrelevant subtleties. The point is simply that Hegel, like Benjamin - like Marx(ists) - thought of the history of art in stages (i.e. one stage after another in one historical line). Unlike an "anthropological" view of cultures which places them all on equal footing. Benjamin's apparent lack of interest (or knowledge about?) other cultures, plus his single line, linear approach, leads him to make assumptions about early and other cultures that are quite simply unsustainable. (I've made this point about three times now.)"
I'm not sure which subtlety you think is irrelevant, Mr Allan, or why you would think that any subtlety in an argument could BE irrelevant. Nor do I see how an anthropological view is really all that different from what Hegel does, with the caveat that Hegel wants to understand his present epoch, rather than understanding one that is effectively dead and gone. But perhaps we should merely agree to disagree. Although I must say that you seem to be very uncharitable in your reading of Hegel, Marx(ists) and Benjamin. I say again: Benjamin is constantly trying to destroy what he sees as THE MYTH of linear progress. As is Hegel (one cannot draw a straight line, for instance, from natural beauty through the classical Ideal to Romantic art. Nor can one say that Romantic art is better than the Classical period. IN fact, from Hegel's point of view, whereas classical art most successfully expresses its Ideal, Romantic Art is the least well suited to its own). But perhaps this is just more chatter. So I'll leave off. I Would however, be very grateful, if you could explain what, exactly, you find vague and ill defined in Benjamin's concept of 'Aura.' With this bit of information, I could prepare a better explication. On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RE: "You mistake progress, Mr. Allen, for *Linear progress:* > > You're getting into irrelevant subtleties. The point is simply that > Hegel, like Benjamin - like Marx(ists) - thought of the history of art > in stages (i.e. one stage after another in one historical line). > Unlike an "anthropological" view of cultures which places them all on > equal footing. Benjamin's apparent lack of interest (or knowledge > about?) other cultures, plus his single line, linear approach, leads > him to make assumptions about early and other cultures that are quite > simply unsustainable. (I've made this point about three times now.) > > Hegel has a similar linear approach (e.g. Egyptian culture belonged to > a childhood of art for him). It's very much a 19th century thing. > (Benjamin was just a late entry in the field.) > > RE ' I still don't know, for instance, why you think 'aura' is an > > inscrutible concept, " > > Actually I didn't say 'inscrutable". I said vague and ill-defined (or > words to that effect). But if you think it is nice and clear, tell me > what you think it means (it will only be about the 50th different > interpretation I have read...) > > > DA > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 8:21 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You mistake progress, Mr. Allen, for *Linear progress:* I.e. a > development > > that's cumulative and transitive, and which makes previous moments > > obselete. Hegel's aesthetics doesn't appeal to any of these notions. > hence > > it's not linear. There's progress, to be sure, but not the kind you are > > attributing (especially since symbolic, classical and romantic art, > perdure > > after their apparent demise, which would be impossible if Hegel was > thinking > > linearly) So, I'll chalk your remarks here up to being written in haste, > > rather than signaling something a little more troublesome. But, this > aside, > > there is NOTHING Hegelian about Benjamin. So, in any event, your > comparison > > doesn't hold in the first place. > > > > Apropos your second remark, "Er ... what about the rest of world art? And > > what on earth has > > Schopenhauer to do with the present discussion?" I can only say you're > > focusing on the wrong element. Schopenhauer is an instance of a mistake, > > namely Orientialism, not something that enters into the discussion > > directly. The problem is orientialism, not Schopenehauer. I thought > this > > was clear; my mistake. > > > > Next, I have in mind a number of claims of yours, which you haven't > argued > > explicitly. I still don't know, for instance, why you think 'aura' is an > > inscrutible concept, why you think Benjamin doesn't consider the history > of > > art (especially since he discusses it), or why you think he has a linear > > conception of history. I know you've made these claims, but I haven't > seen > > anything past assertions. The assertions are problematic, it seems to > me, > > hence they need explication, and defense. > > > > As for the rest of your response, I can only say that I am a reader of > > history, and art history -- as were Hegel, and Benjamin -- and I do not > ban > > anything from aesthetics. My point, moderate as I think it is, is that > > there are better ways of using history than to complain that a particular > > theory doesn't explicitly treat of a particular art form or geographical > > region. That wolud be like complaining that Greek drama should be thrown > > out because of its depictions and attitudes towards women and slavery, > or > > that Aristotle and Plato are useless because they only discuss Greek > > material, or that Japanese aesthetics is myopic because it does not > embrace > > the larger filed of art in the west, etc etc. These are unhelpful claims > in > > every sense possible. > > > > Finally, an arbitrary gesture is one where someone makes a remark, which > can > > be leveled against any number of positions, from any number of historical > > periods, from any number of geographical regions in an indiscriminant, > > unhelpful, and unenlightening way. That is to say, both the position > being > > critiqued, the mode of criticism, and the content elaborated are all > > arbitrary. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> 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
