You are a very difficult individual to talk to Mr Allan. You talk in Circles (Like Benjamin "has a linear conception of history" for which you've only asserted it, and never elaborated or explained why you think that), let things drop entirely, or make comments that seem to be non-sequitors.This makes a sustained and productive discussion with you rather difficult.
As for my own reading in Anthropology, yes, I have read some -- very little to be sure, but I have read some (Boaz and Levi-strauss would be two prominent examples). How about you? What have you read? and please, for a second, if not a third time, explain to me what I have missed. For Benjamin References, see John McCole's book, Walter Benjamin and the Antinomies of Tradition, as well as Howard Caygill's Walter:Benjamin: The Colour of Experience. Finally, You utterly miss the point of Benjamin's notion of Cult value. If there's a problem with his argument, it's that it may fall under the Genetic fallacy. But that is something to argue and demonstrate. As For being in a museum making something equal to everything else: the gift shop is in the museum too, sometimes it's not labeled "gift shop." does that mean that the brique-a-braq in it is on the same level as african masks and western paintings? You need a more substantive conception of equal footing, mr Allan, if you want me to take your notion seriously. On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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:
