Well, take the obvious one. What does he mean by aura - precisely? Find me a quote of two that makes it clear (and shows why it is important).
DA On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi - I will have access for a day or so before I loose contact again - so I > will see if in that time Derek might give examples of Benjamin's > uncertainty and lack of clarity - rather than asserting that William will > have made observations in agreement with your own - in that I for one think > it quite clear and believe the work that Susan Buck Morse a n d Joe Snyder > have done on this essay make it quite clear how insightful Benjamin is in > his argumentation - > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:06:44 +1000 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> 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.) > > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
