But that is so old.hat That is one reason why I say he is conservative. He belongs to the 19th century notion of a linear historical development in art - Hegel Marx, Taine - etc. Benjamin gives it his own twist but so what? Basically it's business as usual.
DA On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
