two keys from A&H text 1) how come the superficial commercialisation characterise our society despite of its enlightenment foundation ? 2) necessity VS freedome
i got more understandings from both text after the lecture and seminar because of the author's background. Benjamin wrote this in 1936 in Germany while A&H wrote this in the US in 1944. comparing to Benjamin's work, A&H was looking culture and critique of society from american consumer industrialisation. i personally think this explain alot of things.
Both of them thinks that culture is very important. Benjamin,who is in the beginning of this change, had a higher expectation towords reproduction of art that it will bring art down to mass. while A&H sees more of a negative side because he lives in a different place and time where reproduction of art becomes more commercial ?. instead of art for mass, it became art for money ?. A&H sees that mass media influences people mind and is harmful. A&H realized that through this people are not enlighten anymore. they stop thinking and lined to what media told them.
we had an interesting discussion on 'aura' in seminar. that if Benjamin sees that reproduction reduces aura from artwork why did he still had a high hope and positive aspects about it. maybe because he value mass more than 'aura'. maybe because 'aura' actually caused classes in society that only people who has lots of money can appreciated art and reproduction should have solved this ?.
Hi,
ReplyDeletethanks for sharing your thoughts. You make very felicitous comparison how reproduction influences society: "instead of art for mass, it became art for money". You raised the very important question about aura and its relationship with revolution. I would clarify the connection as it follows: Before mass reproduction, only the privilege classes could afford admiring with aura since the original art was an expensive artifact. Technological revolution demolished aura in mass production and at the same time art became not a privilege but a common thing. Therefore, the privilege of upper classes was broken and mass production empowered ordinary people. It gave the possibility to be enrolled ant treated in the society equally and initiate changes.
Seems like most people also noticed the differing backgrounds of the authors by the time of the lecture and seminar - great that we are now all on the same page :). You have some good points about their differences, but I don't really understand the 2 keys you mentioned in the beginning - what significance do they pose, how are they related?
ReplyDeleteNice reflection!
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI also found it enlightening when it was explained that A&H were addressing culture and society in the form of American consumerism, and Benjamin saw things from a more positive and naïve point of view.
It's great that you talk about art for mass vs art for money and how it affects enlightenment.
You are right about how mass production of art decreases the aura of the original art object, but at the same time gives the common people more power.
Well reflected!
I like how you have paraphrased Benjamin’s strongest arguments. I do believe those two concepts are not just the gist of his article, but I would say those are enough for me to take away from what Benjamin is saying. Moreover, your two-point-remark is becoming a ritual by now! But I like how you have summarized their main arguments.
ReplyDeleteI also think that after the seminar and the lecture I had a much better grasp of the material. I am glad you brought up the difference between Benjamin and Adorno and Horkheimer’s view on culture and its potencies to inspire change. All in All, I think you have written a smooth text! Cheers!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThank you for a understandable text. I like the way you are comparing A&H and Benjamin and that you take to consideration that they have different starting points when they wrote the two texts. As for you, and as I have seen, I also understood the texts better after the lecture and the seminar. I think that Benjamin said that breaking the aura and increasing the reproduction was something necessary but it still was sad if you think of the aura.
Hey!
ReplyDeleteYour blog is the second one where I see taking authors background and his location and the time of writing the text in to consideration. This is interesting way of getting more perspective on the texts and the ideas that were presented in it.
I am also confused about Benjamins opinion of aura. I understood that he doesn't see it as a bad thing but also through trying to encourage the mass reproduction of art tries in a way to get rid of it. Maybe his motives are not destructive, but nobel and he wants that as many people as possible can enjoy art. Original works would still maintain its aura (although as you say, it would be probably appreciated only by the rich people).
I agree with you that Benjamin see the withering of the aura as something positive because it makes it available to the mass. Like the teacher said during our seminar, Benjamin see this as something empowering for the working class where they are no longer left our of art that previously was often only available to the social elite. I also see this as one part of the connection to Benjamin's view on why art has revolutionary potential.
ReplyDeleteHello. The differences in time that you bring up is really important. It's interesting how different Benjamin and A&H thinks just because they wrote their texts in different times and cultures. You also decided to focus on other things as opposed to other blog posts, which was interesting to read. Good job!
ReplyDeleteI like how you mentioned the importance of the different backgrounds of Walter Benjamin and the Horkheimer & Adorno, seeing as I to was very impressed in what different light I saw the text after both (their stories as well as their relations to each other) had been told. Of course I knew that to some extend you should take cultural, societal and historical into account when reading texts, but for such an extreme background as that of Benjamin's to come to light in such a vivid manner, really opened up a new way of looking at his writings for me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that historical background of the authors did explain a lot of things for the texts. It is interesting to link the art with mass as well as money. I think in many case research questions can be formulated accordingly from this perspective. Also, your seminar discussion on ‘aura’ is very inspiring and different. It is a good entry point to think why Benjamin made his point of view on ‘aura’. I think this may result in the reproduction. When he discovered the media reproduction phenomenon, it would be a reasonable thinking to find out what is changed. In my opinion, ‘aura’ is a useful term to explain the difference between the original one and the copies. However, I am wondering how to properly define the ‘aura’ with current movie or media industries?
ReplyDelete