Links:
http://amlinden.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1443199176723#c9097455786895486531
Visar inlägg med etikett Theme 2. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett Theme 2. Visa alla inlägg
fredag 25 september 2015
söndag 20 september 2015
Theme 2: Reflection - Postseminar
For this week we were asked to read two classical texts in critical theory: Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity" (1936) and Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception").
They were both interesting texts but before the seminar and lecture I was sorely confused - my mind did not realise that the author’s situation (place, time, etc.) was fundamental for understanding the context of the differing texts. Mainly that Benjamin was in Germany in a pre-war era. Adorno & Horkheimer fled to America and wrote their text towards the end of the war.
I now understand the that enlightenment is complemented by nominalism to only see the world as it is and not rely on concepts, theories or thoughts. When enlightenment takes over completely we get stuck in a mindset where potential for new ideas are crushed. Therefore a balance should be maintain where we try to see the world as it is but still remain open to our own interpretations.
In the seminar we discussed and learned the following:
Classic realism is the opposite of nominalism. While nominalism depicts all objects as true uncategorized objects and the world is only as we perceive it - classic realism is the theory that every single thing we experience is only a reflection of a true hidden object, for example, every chair I see is a partial reflection of one ultimate chair. These ultimate objects exist in the mind, within concepts and theories.
Another topic that ties into this is the differing opinions of Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin when it comes to mass media and culture. While Benjamin sees the potential in new technologies like cinema because it gives a sense of dignity to the bourgeois when they are depicted film. He also proves that there is more to discover with this new technology, like the camera for example, allowed us to realize how horses gallop. Therefore Benjamin thought these elements created revolutionary potential in media & culture.
Adorno & Horkheimer on the other hand argue that mass media is using nominalism to stabilize the world and depict it as an absolute. People see the world through cinema as it is outside - therefore they believe it is the absolute truth, everybody is bound to their roles. Adorno & Horkheimer believe that we should reintroduce a bit of the classic realism that lets us ponder on important questions, not just take the world as we experience it.
We also realized that historically determined perception is more or less contextually determined perception. The circumstances form and shape our perception.
Lastly aura is the uniqueness of an object, the circumstances in which it was used or created gives it aura. If a rockstar throws you his hat under a concert, that hat has aura since it was used by that famous rockstar - a copy of that hat has not experience the scalp of that rockstar, ergo it has less aura. Mass media allows everyone to experience that “hat” and therefore its uniqueness decays.
I would like to add as an end note that the professor who was giving the lecture and seminar performed fantastically. He was easy to understand and spoke well.
fredag 11 september 2015
Theme 2: Critical media studies - Preseminar
Dialectic of Enlightenment
- What is "Enlightenment"?
As the first sentence in the book states; it is the subduing of the things that are unknown and therefore fearful to man, and thusly creating a master race - fearful of none! I perceive it also through these chapters as the removal of subjectivity amongst theories unknown. By going for a more objective approach towards myth, you can unveil the mystery and therefore deny it the power over man - a more naturalistic way of thinking perhaps. Described as disenchanting the world and cleansing it of magical aspects.
- What is "Dialectic"?
Through definition it is described as: “A logical discussion that aims to seek out the truth of an opinion or theory”. In Horkheimer and Adorno’s book, they are both explaining the term itself - and also using it within the context of the book, gathering other philosophers thoughts and theories, clashing them against one another within the subject of enlightenment. They further describes it as a way of putting the whole image onto a script, giving a way to carefully perceive the fallacy within arguments.
- What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism is a philosophic angle that denies the reality of abstract terms (unproven Ideas, types and concepts) acknowledging real tangible objects instead. Since enlightenment is focused on objectivity and the abolishment of the supernatural, nominalism fits like a glove.
- What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
Myth denotes that of the whimsical and mysterious past, filled with supernatural and magical aspects - an alternative way of understanding how the world came to be. As I see it through the book, myth is both a state of power from the fear/respect of that which you do not fully understand, while also being something fictitious and abstract. That which cannot objectively be proven is tagged as “myth” by enlightenment.
The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity- In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?
I interpret the superstructure in this context as the deeper values we possess within our culture, ideology or art. Changing how people value things takes time, it is something you affect at the core. Substructure on the other hand I therefore perceive as the material parts (tools, people, methods) within our society.
In the Dialectic of Enlightenment, Horkheimer and Adorno describes our daily capitalistic production of culture and art, where a rich few defines the troupes and direction of art. As culture stands on the flow of money, the corporate fatcats are reluctant to embrace new and innovative ideas - therefore a Marxist perspective on the production of culture could prove useful.
What I believe Benjamin is implying is the fact that through new methods, inventions and letting the people experiment i.e. developing the substructure, we can unlock new heights in the superstructure which has in the present slowly come to a halt.
- Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?
According to Benjamin the answer is yes and I concur! With the leap in art from lithography to photography and even later on with the advent of moving pictures, as said before, with a change to the substructure, culture can embrace these new methods and thusly change the world. It has already happened with the mentioned new discoveries, and can therefore happen again.
- Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).
The general perception of man can be shaped and bent - influenced by historical events. On the other hand; to naturally determine human perception, we just have to look at our biological body and figure out how it works.
An example of historically determined perception that Benjamin brings up is the shift from expensive cultural performances like theater and opera to the affordable movie ticket in the cinema. Both in the price and the performance the shift to perception was staggering! No longer could the recipient calmly analyse the scene as it progressed, with the editor’s help, movies felt fast and exhilarating with a staggering amount of sound effects bombarding the senses - there was no room left to analyse as the scenes flew by. And that became the accepted term of perception within such art.
- What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
From what I could gather, “aura” could mean presence of the soul from within the object or person. Benjamin mentioned how revolution of cinema compared against theater missed the “aura” that the presence of real actors on stage creates. By destroying the uniqueness of the act or object, the decay of “aura” begins - ergo within the mass produced market of today, all “aura” is lost!
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)