Prove them wrong or show me the error of my ways remember those propositions are based on my reading of Benjamin - so your task is double to show that they are questionable in relation to benjamin and then in general Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:00:06 +1000 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Presence > > Now (1) obviously I can't prove wrong what 'you find' in Benjamin. > > But (2) the second part of your email contains some very questionable > propositions. > > Take: 'The stylistic changes that have effected art >> since the mid-19thcentury can be attributed in large part to artists9 >> responding to the growing influence of mechanical reproduction and mass >> media.' > > Which artists are we talking about? I think it is quite possible - > even likely - that photography (let's avoid the clumsy 'mechanical > reproduction') affected the Salon painters. They were in large measure > trying to compete with it - and doing so quite well for a while > because they had colour and photography didn't (The cinema killed them > off finally) > > But the idea that photography was somehow a factor for Van Gogh, > Cezanne etc seems to me a furphy. I know it is a favorite idea in art > history books but it is always just asserted - never demonstrated. I > think those painters were responding to much deeper cultural > developments than the invention of photography. (I am not going to try > to argue that here. But then Benjamin doesn't argue his position > either - he just asserts it.) > > But above all, you - and Benjamin - need to be clear which painters > you are talking about. To lump the salon painters in with Cezanne etc > would be very odd. > > There are heaps of other problems in what you say. (eg "Beginning with > the premise that the work of art attained its > autonomy with art for art sake at that time," "its aura (the > mechanisms of its secular > autonomy constituted by the 3residual affect of its historical origins as a > cult object and fetish" "hreatens to transforms art into a thing that exists > only for exhibition." "the contradictorily impulse to > realize an art that is both immutable (eternal) and one that is forever > changing and political in its aesthetic." ) > > But that will do me for now. I'm not here to write essays.Maybe I'll > come back to those. > > DA > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here prove this wrong >> >> My interest in Walter Benjamin9s The Work of Art in the Age (Epoch) of its >> Technical Reproducibility (1935-36)* is pragmatic. I find its structure > and >> content to be a mechanism, which supplies a model for focusing on and >> rethinking such subjects as art history, the role of the artist as author/ >> producer, the nature of cultural production9s varied practices, as well as >> the relationship between aesthetics and cultural politics. This text > offers >> me the means by which to structure these elements into a network in which > it >> is possible to account for the respective impact of each component on the >> identity and the economies of the other9s. This platform offers me a >> critical perspective from which the provisional art historical narrative >> that claims to reflect Benjamin9s Art Work essay can be analyzed. Such >> sociological accounts though formalist in nature takes as their central >> argument the prospect that the stylistic changes that have effected art >> since the mid-19thcentury can be attributed in large part to artists9 >> responding to the growing influence of mechanical reproduction and mass >> media. Beginning with the premise that the work of art attained its >> autonomy with art for art sake at that time, it then goes on to re-affirm >> the view that mechanical reproduction not only threatens this illusionary >> autonomy, but actually by negating its aura (the mechanisms of its secular >> autonomy constituted by the 3residual affect of its historical origins as a >> cult object and fetish) threatens to transforms art into a thing that > exists >> only for exhibition. This schema, susceptible to the logic of positivism, >> Benjamin acknowledges leaves un-resolved the contradictorily impulse to >> realize an art that is both immutable (eternal) and one that is forever >> changing and political in its aesthetic. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > 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.
