Re:"> As For being in a museum making something equal to everything else: the gift > shop is in the museum too, sometimes it's not labeled "gift shop." does that > mean that the brique-a-braq in it is on the same level as african masks and > western paintings? You need a more substantive conception of equal footing, > mr Allan, if you want me to take your notion seriously."
I think I will drop the subject Imago... DA On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 10:39 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are a very difficult individual to talk to Mr Allan. You talk in > Circles (Like Benjamin "has a linear conception of history" for which you've > only asserted it, and never elaborated or explained why you think that), let > things drop entirely, or make comments that seem to be non-sequitors.This > makes a sustained and productive discussion with you rather difficult. > > As for my own reading in Anthropology, yes, I have read some -- very little > to be sure, but I have read some (Boaz and Levi-strauss would be two > prominent examples). How about you? What have you read? and please, for a > second, if not a third time, explain to me what I have missed. > > For Benjamin References, see John McCole's book, Walter Benjamin and the > Antinomies of Tradition, as well as Howard Caygill's Walter:Benjamin: The > Colour of Experience. > > Finally, You utterly miss the point of Benjamin's notion of Cult value. If > there's a problem with his argument, it's that it may fall under the Genetic > fallacy. But that is something to argue and demonstrate. > > As For being in a museum making something equal to everything else: the gift > shop is in the museum too, sometimes it's not labeled "gift shop." does that > mean that the brique-a-braq in it is on the same level as african masks and > western paintings? You need a more substantive conception of equal footing, > mr Allan, if you want me to take your notion seriously. > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> RE: "the secondary literature on Benjamin is pretty unanimous >> about Benjamin's non-linear conception of history." >> >> Care to quote me just one? - preferably a clear and comrhensible one, >> with argumentation. It would interest me to see how someone could >> believe the contrary of what is so obviously the case.. >> . >> Re: '> >> > Also I am only slightly familiar with the anthropology of art. But I'm >> > surprised that you would be interested in it, since it uses art as a >> > privileged object to discuss cultural formations (how art is made, what >> it's >> > significance is intra-community), rather than having anything to do with >> art >> > in general or in specific. " >> >> Oh dear...You haven't read any, have you? More importantly you >> obviously haven't thought about its implications (any more than >> Benjamin seems to have). >> >> Re:[Benjamin's] not trying to develop >> > a global theory of art in the first place (not in any of his writings >> with >> > which I am familiar does he attempt to do this)." >> >> Precisely. Which is why his theory of art is so outmoded now - so 19th >> century in effect. We *live* in a global world of art!! (As Benjamin >> did in his time too - though he seems unaware of it.) >> >> Re: Furthermore, I take it that not all >> > cultures -- past or present -- can be put on an equal footing. In fact, >> I >> > don't even know what it would mean to do so, let alone how one could do >> it." >> >> We do it every time we walk into a major art museum today.(Is African >> art - eg - in a back room with a sign over the door" 'Cult objects - >> not really art"?) >> >> There's a lot more I could comment on in your post but I can't spare >> the time for long replies. >> >> DA >> >> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 12:49 AM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > "When it complicates things to no good purpose." >> > >> > I.e. when the details don't fit the story one wants to tell.... >> > >> > Be that as it me, the secondary literature on Benjamin is pretty >> unanimous >> > about Benjamin's non-linear conception of history. Moreover, it's pretty >> > clear in his writings too -- hard to miss in fact. And I'm still >> absolutely >> > at a loss to account for why you keep saying he has a linear conception, >> > unless you are trying to be completely reductive on purpose. >> > >> > Also I am only slightly familiar with the anthropology of art. But I'm >> > surprised that you would be interested in it, since it uses art as a >> > privileged object to discuss cultural formations (how art is made, what >> it's >> > significance is intra-community), rather than having anything to do with >> art >> > in general or in specific. to that end, it is rather Hegelian: a >> particular >> > culture's art reflects its beliefs, attitudes, interrelations, and >> > practices. As Hegel would put it, art of a group expresses that group's >> > Idea, it's self conception (and its criteria for judging -- the Ideal of >> a >> > form of art -- lies within this sphere of beliefs etc). Maybe you're >> more >> > taken with Anthropology's methodological aversion to value judgments than >> > with their actual practices of investigating art or culture. That's Okay >> > too. But let's not mistake a methodological tactic to ensure precision >> and >> > objective data collection for something non-Hegelian. Hegel may have >> been a >> > typical 19th C European, and dismissive of 'primitive cultures,' but he >> did >> > a good job bringing together the best information available in order to >> > describe the functions of works of art within their historical context. >> And >> > he is certainly not dismissive of Egyptian Art in the way you imply. He >> > just thinks -- rightly I might add -- that the 19th C possesses a larger, >> > more differentiated, more complex web of beliefs, interrelations, and >> > practices than anything before it. Its Idea is more subtle, more >> complex, >> > and hence the Ideal of its art is correspondingly subtler, more complex, >> > etc. So, I say again: I'm not sure what the difference is. Perhaps you >> > could tell me. I would like to know what I'm missing. >> > >> > IN fact, I'm totally unsure why you think the major issue has to do with >> > whether Benjamin places all forms of cultural production on an equal >> footing >> > and starts from there. so when you write, >> > >> > "The issue is (once again) whether or not Benjamin placed all >> > cultures on an equal footing and develops his theory of art in the >> > light of an objective study of how other cultres *actually* saw the >> > obejcts now regarded as art. The answer is obviously no." >> > >> > I don't see the issue here at all, nor do I see a criticism in what >> you've >> > written. Benjamin clearly recognizes that "art" in not a static concept. >> > He clearly recognizes an anthropological dimension in its genesis and >> > genetic development (i.e. as beginning with some form of ritual) -- hence >> > the cult value of art. He's clearly aware that different periods thought >> of >> > "art" differently. But that's not his concern. He's not trying to >> develop >> > a global theory of art in the first place (not in any of his writings >> with >> > which I am familiar does he attempt to do this). He is theorizing the >> > potentials of a new form of artistic presentation, which he is then >> > contrasting with older forms of art within his own European context. So >> > what exactly is the problem? >> > >> > I admit he has no global theory of art. I admit he is not trying to >> > objectively study the uses of art for all time. But I don't see how that >> > amounts to a criticism of his essay. Furthermore, I take it that not all >> > cultures -- past or present -- can be put on an equal footing. In fact, >> I >> > don't even know what it would mean to do so, let alone how one could do >> it. >> > I'm not even sure one can know how an other culture 'actually' saw it's >> own >> > art -- i'm not sure I can know how people in my own culture 'actually' >> see >> > art. I'm not even sure it matters (eg I don't care how average people >> > 'actually' see science and art, I care about science and art). And I >> don't >> > think Anthropology (of art, or of anything else) ever tries to understand
