"When it complicates things to no good purpose." I.e. when the details don't fit the story one wants to tell....
Be that as it me, the secondary literature on Benjamin is pretty unanimous about Benjamin's non-linear conception of history. Moreover, it's pretty clear in his writings too -- hard to miss in fact. And I'm still absolutely at a loss to account for why you keep saying he has a linear conception, unless you are trying to be completely reductive on purpose. Also I am only slightly familiar with the anthropology of art. But I'm surprised that you would be interested in it, since it uses art as a privileged object to discuss cultural formations (how art is made, what it's significance is intra-community), rather than having anything to do with art in general or in specific. to that end, it is rather Hegelian: a particular culture's art reflects its beliefs, attitudes, interrelations, and practices. As Hegel would put it, art of a group expresses that group's Idea, it's self conception (and its criteria for judging -- the Ideal of a form of art -- lies within this sphere of beliefs etc). Maybe you're more taken with Anthropology's methodological aversion to value judgments than with their actual practices of investigating art or culture. That's Okay too. But let's not mistake a methodological tactic to ensure precision and objective data collection for something non-Hegelian. Hegel may have been a typical 19th C European, and dismissive of 'primitive cultures,' but he did a good job bringing together the best information available in order to describe the functions of works of art within their historical context. And he is certainly not dismissive of Egyptian Art in the way you imply. He just thinks -- rightly I might add -- that the 19th C possesses a larger, more differentiated, more complex web of beliefs, interrelations, and practices than anything before it. Its Idea is more subtle, more complex, and hence the Ideal of its art is correspondingly subtler, more complex, etc. So, I say again: I'm not sure what the difference is. Perhaps you could tell me. I would like to know what I'm missing. IN fact, I'm totally unsure why you think the major issue has to do with whether Benjamin places all forms of cultural production on an equal footing and starts from there. so when you write, "The issue is (once again) whether or not Benjamin placed all cultures on an equal footing and develops his theory of art in the light of an objective study of how other cultres *actually* saw the obejcts now regarded as art. The answer is obviously no." I don't see the issue here at all, nor do I see a criticism in what you've written. Benjamin clearly recognizes that "art" in not a static concept. He clearly recognizes an anthropological dimension in its genesis and genetic development (i.e. as beginning with some form of ritual) -- hence the cult value of art. He's clearly aware that different periods thought of "art" differently. But that's not his concern. He's not trying to develop a global theory of art in the first place (not in any of his writings with which I am familiar does he attempt to do this). He is theorizing the potentials of a new form of artistic presentation, which he is then contrasting with older forms of art within his own European context. So what exactly is the problem? I admit he has no global theory of art. I admit he is not trying to objectively study the uses of art for all time. But I don't see how that amounts to a criticism of his essay. Furthermore, I take it that not all cultures -- past or present -- can be put on an equal footing. In fact, I don't even know what it would mean to do so, let alone how one could do it. I'm not even sure one can know how an other culture 'actually' saw it's own art -- i'm not sure I can know how people in my own culture 'actually' see art. I'm not even sure it matters (eg I don't care how average people 'actually' see science and art, I care about science and art). And I don't think Anthropology (of art, or of anything else) ever tries to understand how members of a community 'actually see' their own actions. From what I understand, they try to understand the social systems in which the various types of agency within a given community are possible, and to understand how these systems produce and stabilize the kinds of behaviours and artefacts that can be empirically observed -- i.e. how everything fits together in a relatively stable whole. So what's the problem again? On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re: > > 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." > > When it complicates things to no good purpose. > > > RE:"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. " > > Oh dear....you are seriously missing the point. Did you know that > there exists something called the anthropology of art for example? > Have you ever read any? > > RE:"I say again: Benjamin is constantly trying to destroy what he > > sees as THE MYTH of linear progress." > > Well that's very debatable. But the idea of progress is not the real > issue. The issue is (once again) whether or not Benjamin placed all > cultures on an equal footing and develops his theory of art in the > light of an objective study of how other cultres *actually* saw the > obejcts now regarded as art. The answer is obviously no. > > RE: "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)." > > This is not the point at issue at all. > > RE:"I Would however, > > be very grateful, if you could explain what, exactly, you find vague and > ill > > defined in Benjamin's concept of 'Aura.' " > > Everything. So anything you like to say will be interesting. > > DA. > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 10:23 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > " 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, "
