Imago, Let's put Benjamin to one said for a moment and just focus on one point at a time.
You said: "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." to which I replied: "We do it every time we walk into a major art museum today. (Is African art - e.g. - in a back room with a sign over the door" 'Cult objects - not really art"?") Now, my reply related to art but of course cultures are put on an equal footing in an even more obvious context. Anthropology functions on this very basis. It does not start from the position: "The West is better than the rest" (or something similar). It sets aside all such assumptions and, aiming for an "objective", "scientific" approach, treats all cultures as equal - i.e. on the same footing as objects for study. I assume that's not controversial. I can't imagine how it could be. (Of course one can debate the value of anthropology as a discipline, and whether it manages to achieve an objective approach but that is another matter. Whatever its outcome, its aim is clear.) Now, today's art museum (as distinct e.g. from the art museum in the 19thC for example) is like this in a way. There was a time - not so long ago - when, say, African art was not allowed inside the door of an art museum. It was just not seen as art. Gradually it got admitted, until we have now reached the position where African art - like that of lots of other cultures - is regarded as art just as much as Rembrandt or Picasso. This is not about the quality of this or that piece (which is why I thought your last paragraph not to the point). It is about the status of the works of whole cultures. It does not mean that just anything they produced gets inside the door, but it does means that things are not excluded just because they are African or whatever. This is why I said: "We do it [i.e. put cultures on an equal footing] every time we walk into a major art museum today." Whatever we may think about the quality of this or that piece, we don't think "Oh my God, how could that be art? It's African!" (or Egyptian, or Indian or whatever) Does that make my point clear? If so we can maybe move on... DA http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm ------------------ On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:17 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) >
