Ms Sullivan, I agree with everything you've written in the message below. I was too hasty in discounting the destruction of the object in my previous message, and I'll have to rethink my comments.
I suppose my reason for wanting to read Benjamin's notion of reproduction in technical, rather than in something like metaphysical terms (where the latter focuses on the status of the represented object, or the objectivity of the work itself) is due to the fact that such a reading implicates a further concept, namely that of autonomy, which Benjamin doesn't discuss as far as I remember (I promise to reread the essays -- there are three versions of it, only one of which was published by the Zeitschrift fuer Sozialforschung -- and write something specifically on aura and authenticity). But perhaps Autonomy is precisely the point. I'll respond with something more substantive tonight, after work when I have some free time. Mr Allan: I didn't cite anything from the books I mentioned for several reasons. First, I have better things to do than type pages and pages of material into an email, which wouldn't be read anyway (remember you asked for arguments. And arguments run for dozens of pages, if not a book chapter or two). Second, I don't have the books to hand at this time, so couldn't quote from them, even if I was truly inclined. Third, if you're really interested, you can go to the library yourself and read the books. Fourth, since you consistently refuse to offer any help or insight into your claims, I feel little obligation to go out of my way to reproduce material for you on request. I had asked several times for clarification, and received none--not even an acknowledgement of my request. These hardly amount to a reciprocal situation of the sort you are now complaining that we lack. Finally apropos the last paragraph you have mentioned: it is a reductio ad absurdem argument. If you don't feel its force, feel free to explain why. I could have just as easily said that Bougereau and Cabanel are in museums too, but, according to you, they are not art. That would have made the same point. On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:13 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One of Benjamin's major concerns, however, is the concrete manner of > > presentation (Dartsellung) employed by a work of art, rather than > representational > > content as such. I think the idea of Aura is meant to capture a > distinction > > in presentation rather than representation. It highlights, I believe, > the > > difference between individual, unique works, which require individual, > solitary > > attention (an 'I' returning the gaze of a 'Thou'). So I don't think we > need > > to force the issue of mechanical processes producing something that > doesn't > > exist in itself, as it were (Benjamin is discussing, technische > > Reproduzierbarkeit, not mechanische Reproduzierbarkeit [technical, not > mechanical > > reproduction]); It's a question of techniques inherent to a medium, not > of > mechanism > > simpliciter. > > > > > > He says that the object of itself had a physical presence composed of its > history and cultural practices. He says that when the image-in the sense of > a > secondary portrayal is multiplied then the physical presence of the > object is not present in the secondary image,itself an object without > the > history of the object itself. He says this destroys perception of the > physical presenceof the object itself. He also seems to say that it is > the > number > of gazes which help to destroy the physical presence,and that these gazes > can > gaze because of the number of images of the work. He seems to imply that > it is the number of images of the object easily accessible to the number > of > gazes which does the damage-the culmulative effect of a lot of people who > would not ordinarily have been able to see the object itself looking at > many > images of the object destroys the perception of the physical presence of > the > object itself when at last it is reached. The object itself has not > changed,its > history is the same,its cultural importance is the same,,and the number > of > gazes looking at reproductions of the object somewhere else has no > effect > on the physical object. If the viewer,having laid their gaze on many images > of the object, now expects the object itself, now in front of them, to > bestow knowledge of itself and a further appreciation of its beauties, on > him or > her, then this cannot happen without a kind of attention on the viewer's > part which is not possible with an image of the object. > Kate Sullivan > > > > > > > ************** > Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for > fuel-efficient used cars. > (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
