All fetishes have their object As to whether you accept the hypothesis or not depends if you prove something to the contrary - as long as it remains moot - it remains potentially true
So disprove it - its not enough for you to say that would require an awful lot of argumentation before I would even begin to treat it seriously. Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art > From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:39:58 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > 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 > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.
