RE: "Benjamin in art in the age of its mechanical reproduction - identifies art with the cultish - that is it is a religious object ( non secular- but residually an object of veneration) - it looses its power/ authority by being transformed into a mere image by mass reproduction - and in the process art is revealed to be a fetish -"
First, I am by no means sure this is what Benjamin actually means. I have read various accounts (and his own text) and there seems to be considerable disagreement. He was just not a very clear writer (thinker?) Re: 'I'm just proposing that the > possibility that art exists is a comparable proposition that god exists - > the fact that we have things such as artists and priest do not make that > which they serve any realer than an act of faith" So, assuming that your account of Benjamin is correct, you are (1) simply asking us to accept his proposition as true (personally I think it highly dubious) and then (2) accept on that basis that because art is "revealed as a fetish" (I assume you mean our responses to art - the "Night Watch" obviously exists), its existence is no "realer" than what we (moderns) understand - probably misunderstand - as the experience of a worshipper towards his fetish. Sorry, that would require an awful lot of argumentation before I would even begin to treat it seriously. DA On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Remember this whole thread arose from a reference to Benjamin - > Benjamin in art in the age of its mechanical reproduction - identifies art > with the cultish - that is it is a religious object ( non secular- but > residually an object of veneration) - it looses its power/ authority by > being transformed into a mere image by mass reproduction - and in the > process art is revealed to be a fetish - I'm just proposing that the > possibility that art exists is a comparable proposition that god exists - > the fact that we have things such as artists and priest do not make that > which they serve any realer than an act of faith > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:58:11 -0400 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Saul Ostrow wrote: >> >>> Nope - the idea that art exists is an an act of faith and that someone >>> called an artist may actually manifest that which maybe identified >>> as art is >>> no different than the faith that a priest can channel god >> >> >> I don't grasp this. Can you exapnd? >> >> >> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | >> Michael Brady >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
