RE: "the secondary literature on Benjamin is pretty unanimous about Benjamin's non-linear conception of history."
Care to quote me just one? - preferably a clear and comrhensible one, with argumentation. It would interest me to see how someone could believe the contrary of what is so obviously the case.. . Re: '> > 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. " Oh dear...You haven't read any, have you? More importantly you obviously haven't thought about its implications (any more than Benjamin seems to have). Re:[Benjamin'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)." Precisely. Which is why his theory of art is so outmoded now - so 19th century in effect. We *live* in a global world of art!! (As Benjamin did in his time too - though he seems unaware of it.) Re: 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." We do it every time we walk into a major art museum today.(Is African art - eg - in a back room with a sign over the door" 'Cult objects - not really art"?) There's a lot more I could comment on in your post but I can't spare the time for long replies. DA On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 12:49 AM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "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
