(I had tried to send this message under a new thread, "Authenticity and Aura", but it does not seem to have worked. I paste it here. Sorry for any potential doublings)
An attempt to clarify the relationship between Benjamin's concepts of Authenticity and Aura: I reread the 2nd and 3rd versions of Benjamin's "The Work of Art" essay and realized that part of the difference between Ms Sullivans observations and my own is due to the fact that I have been thinking primarily about the third version of the essay, and she has been thinking about the 2nd (I don't believe the first version has been translated). The major difference between the two, so far as I can see, is precisely the emphasis on the destruction of the work-character of a work of art. That is, on the idea of the work of art as an object in itself. However, the general trajectory of both essays remains more or less the same (so far as I can tell), especially insofar as 'authenticity' and 'aura' are concerned. To be sure, there are differences between the two essays, which a more responsible commentary than the one to follow would need to account for (as memory serves, the final Chapter of Caygill's book deals with the three versions and their differences). But I still think we can distill the two concepts without too much stress of differences. The first thing to be noted is the relationships accruing among the authenticity of a work, its physical presence, its history, and the notion of Aura itself. There is a sense in which 'auratic works' present themselves as natural objects (to use Benjamin's example, which is a paraphrased version of Goethe's conception of 'symbol,' [cf. Benjamins Trauerspielbuch p. 165ff] like mountains and trees), instead of the products of man's technical capacities. As Benjamin frames the matter: "The here and now of the original underlies the concept of its authenticity, and on the latter in turn is founded the idea of a tradition which has passed the object down as the same, identical thing to the present day" (III 2nd para). Now, the here and now of a work is defined by Benjamin as "its unique existence in a particular place. It is this unique existence --and nothing else--that bears the mark of history to which the work has been subject" (III 1st). Authenticity is tied to the historical lineage of a work (a slightly reductive conception, to be sure -- one which is at odds with Adorno's coneption of authenticity in Aesthetic Theory, but perhaps consonant with Heidegger. as we'll see, however, Benjamin's analysis undercuts the hermeneutical project by relativizing Tradition, and hence a particular conception of historical progression qua transmission of material content [ownership, material composition, etc.]), which manifests itself in the physical changes of the work itself. Moreover, authenticity is the core of a non-reproducible work of art. "The authenticity of a thing is the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it from its origin on, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relating [i.e. commentary and ownership] to it [...] what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object, the weight it derives from tradition" (III 3rd). Insofar as Authenticity = here and now, this here and now = the authority bestowed upon objects by Tradition, which treats the object as undergoing a series of changes, both material and interpretative, which nevertheless leave the work in tact, as a whole. Authenticity is thus the History of an object -- the transmissible content -- that defines Tradition. But it is also something that is essentially distinct from the work itself. The work has a history, and history confirms, validates, and legitimates, a work. But this fifth element [quintessence] is not constitutive of the work of art qua work of art. Rather, Authenticity is Aura. Before showing how Benjamin folds authenticity qua historically transmittable knowledge into the notion of Aura, allow me to first point towards the "cash value" of Aura's desruction, which is tightly connected with the idea of a new form of perception. First, Benjamin believes that the destruction of Aura "lead[s] to a massive upheaval in the domain of objects handed down from the past -- a shattering of tradition which is the reverse side of the present crisis and a renewal of humanity" (III 4th). This shattering, moreover, is inherently related to a change in perception. "If changes in the medium of present-day perception can be understood as a decay in aura , it is possible to demonstrate the social determinants of that decay" (IV 1st). Therefore, Benjamin's concept of 'aura' identifies a nexus of social and historical interactions (ownership, change, interpretation, etc) informing a particular regime of perception, a particular manner of being in the world, which is coming to an end, and which is effectively associated with the Goethe and Hegel (cf. Benjamin's footnote, 22, concerning beautiful appearance). How does Benjamin mobilize this notion? how does he characterize the old regime of perception, Aura? Aura is "a strange tissue of space and time: the unique apparation of a distance, however near it may be [...] uniqueness and permanence are [...] closely entwined " (IV 2nd). We should recognize "authenticity" in this definition: the here and now = a strange tissue of space an time, whose transmissible content is perpetually seen from traditions distance from the object itself. As Benjamin tells us in the next thesis (V): the uniqueness of the wrk is identical to its embeddedness in the context of tradition" (1st). On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:13 AM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for the clarification, Mr Allan. > > If this is all you mean by 'equal footing,' I'm happy to follow along. > Although I believe it is important to note that this conception of 'equal > footing' is very thin. > > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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.
