'Thin' in what respect? DA
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, 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. >> > >> > 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
