And this passes for a analysis and a polemeic - please I hav eunder grads who can do better than this Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:10:55 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > RE: 'Benjamin used the word "aura" to refer to the sense of awe and > reverence one > presumably experienced in the presence of unique works of art. According to > Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in external > attributes such as its known line of ownership, its restricted exhibition, > its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. Aura is thus indicative > of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois > structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious or > secular) ritual.' > > (1) I like 'presumably' experienced... > > (2) In 'primitive', and 'feudal' times there were no 'works of art'. > Slight glitch in Benjamin's historical analysis there. > > (3) Why should any of this have anything to do with 'structures of > power' ? As I recall, there is nothing in Benjamin to demonstrate > this. (But what the heck, it sounds classy. And there are nice Marxist > resonances - without actually having to invoke Marx...) > > (4) Re:"such as its known line of ownership, its restricted > exhibition, its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. " > > This is so hopelessly shaky historically speaking. For vast stretches > of history and for large numbers of objects we now regard as art, the > question of 'line of ownership' was entirely irrelevant. Ditto the > notion of 'exhibition.' The statues at Chartres were not on > 'exhibition', or Buddhist sculpture or so much else. That is Western > post-Renaissance thinking. Authenticity?? The very notion would not > have made sense. Ditto a million times over for 'cultural value'. > > Benjamin's' outlook is so obviously limited by the conventional > leftist thinking of his times... > > There is more to say but I'll leave it at that. > > DA > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Benjamin used the word "aura" to refer to the sense of awe and reverence one >> presumably experienced in the presence of unique works of art. According to >> Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in external >> attributes such as its known line of ownership, its restricted exhibition, >> its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. Aura is thus indicative >> of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois >> structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious or >> secular) ritual. With the advent of art's mechanical reproducibility, and >> the development of forms such as film in which there is no actual original, >> the experience is freed from place and ritual. "For the first time in world >> history," Benjamin wrote, "mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of >> art from its parasitical dependence on ritual." >> >> >> > > > > -- > 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.
