Actually Benjamin leaves little of art in place - he like Hegel sees it as coming to an end and being transformed - he recognizes the emergence of new forms and therefore new practices - I think you need to read the essay Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:39:08 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > On reflection, I left two reasons off my list of Benjamin's popularity. > > The two others are (4) he talks about film quite a bit, and many > people these days want passionately to elevate film to the category of > art (which in fact it is only rarely); and (5) he is basically > conservative. > > "Whaaaatt!!!" I hear the Benjamin fans responding. "Conservative?? > You gotta be joking! He's a Frankfurt school product, clearly on the > political left etc.!!" > > Yes, yes, true. But his account of *art* (to the extent it can be > deciphered) is basically conservative because in the end it leaves > everything more or less in place. Nothing fundamental is challenged. > No feathers are seriously ruffled. No one is asked to revise any > long-established, basic assumptions. > > Yes, that is perhaps what I find most disappointing about him. Not a > bold thinker. Not an adventurous spirit. Basically conservative. > > DA > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ah, William is challenging me on the "evidence" issue again - though I >> note he did not respond to my previous on this where I rejected his >> claim that I simply make assertions without evidence. >> >> As to Benjamin, no, I am not going to quote chapter and verse to >> defend my position. I don't have the time (or the inclination) at the >> moment to discuss the detail of "Art in the Age of Mechanical >> Reproduction". But I assure you, William, I have read it - several >> times - and found it a most unsatisfactory piece of work - riddled >> with ambiguities and vague precisely where it should be clear. Even >> the much-vaunted "aura" idea is not explained well. (If anyone thinks >> it is, how about saying what they think Benjamin means precisely and >> why they think it makes an important contribution to the theory of >> art.) >> >> You say he has "had enormous influence." I wonder. He is talked about >> and written about a lot (in some circles) but ask yourself what major >> ideas - besides the dubious "aura" thing - he has contributed to the >> theory of art. Being a la mode is not the same as being truly >> influential. >> >> In the end I think Benjamin has attracted a following mainly because >> (1) he treats art mainly as a political issue - a very questionable >> move but fashionable (in some circles), (2) he is on the right side of >> the political fence (i.e. the left side), and (3) he is vague enough >> that one can discuss him until the cows come home and never really be >> proved wrong. >> >> I am not the first to say his work is overrated by the way - I have >> read other critics who say the same. >> >> DA >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Can Derek support his comment below by reference to >>> specific remarks in Benjamin's essay, re "Art in the >>> Age of Mechanical Reproduction"? >>> >>> (I'm not an expertly informed fan of Benjamin but >>> his views have had enormous influence that must be >>> recognized. He was a depressive, a troubled man, a >>> suicide, and I wonder if that had anything to do with >>> his pessimism re art). Perhaps Derek can explain it >>> all. Since he's so summative in his off-handed remark >>> about Benjamin he must have a deep well of knowledge >>> about the man and his era. >>> >>> WC >>> >>> >>> --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>>> RE: "And the thread did begin with Benjamin (?) >>>> talking about the >>>> "THE" concept of >>>> "authentic" where, to this moment, I'm not sure >>>> which notion he had in mind." >>>> >>>> Don't worry, Cheerskep. Neither did he. >>>> >>>> DA >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:26 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> In a message dated 6/28/08 7:59:38 PM, William >>>> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Just hold on a second, Cheerskep. One may refer >>>> to >>>>>> THE concept in a discussion of a particular >>>> concept. >>>>>> One does not need to acknowledge all concepts or >>>>>> remind the reader that A concept simply means one >>>> of >>>>>> many, each time an already identified concept is >>>>>> mentioned. >>>>>> >>>>> I don't disagree with your core thought here, >>>> William, which is to say we can >>>>> have a serviceably clear discussion once the >>>> particular notion behind a given >>>>> word-use is effectively described. For example, >>>> if, when we are talking about >>>>> the "authenticity" of a given painting, all of us >>>> agree the notion intended >>>>> is "painted by the painter to whom the work is >>>> ascribed", we can get along all >>>>> right. But in the thread about 'authentic' it was >>>> clear that listers were >>>>> frequently talking at cross purposes -- especially >>>> when the focus drifted from >>>>> painting to "literature". "Jones was the authentic >>>> voice of the American >>>>> South." >>>>> "Smith's dialog simply isn't authentic. No one >>>> talks that way --" etc. >>>>> >>>>> And the thread did begin with Benjamin (?) talking >>>> about the "THE" concept of >>>>> "authentic" where, to this moment, I'm not sure >>>> which notion he had in mind. >>>>> But the thread spurted ahead as though everyone >>>> were talking about the same >>>>> thing. So I was just trying to teach you young >>>> fellers some safety techniques. >>>>> (See my original below.) I myself have tended to >>>> stick to the word 'notion' >>>>> rather than 'concept' for the very reason that our >>>> minds are less ready to >>>>> "objectify", "reify", a notion. But 'concept' is >>>> almost never used without the >>>>> definite article 'the' in front of it. And danger >>>> lies that way. >>>>> >>>>> I know I often mistype common words in these >>>> postings, but when it's a tricky >>>>> word, I'm more inclined to pay attention. Thus >>>> when you write, "Put away your >>>>> badge and have a sasprilila," as resident >>>> word-sheriff I feel compelled to >>>>> reply that it has been a very long time since I've >>>> had a sarsaparilla. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WC >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris is right to condemn this: >>>>>>>> "THE concept of.." rather than "A concept >>>> of.." >>>>>>>>
