Thank you for the clarification, Mr Allan. If this is all you mean by 'equal footing,' I'm happy to follow along. Although I believe it is important to note that this conception of 'equal footing' is very thin.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Imago, > > Let's put Benjamin to one said for a moment and just focus on one > point at a time. > > You said: "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." > > to which I replied: > > "We do it every time we walk into a major art museum today. (Is > African art - e.g. - in a back room with a sign over the door" 'Cult > objects - not really art"?") > > Now, my reply related to art but of course cultures are put on an > equal footing in an even more obvious context. Anthropology functions > on this very basis. It does not start from the position: "The West is > better than the rest" (or something similar). It sets aside all such > assumptions and, aiming for an "objective", "scientific" approach, > treats all cultures as equal - i.e. on the same footing as objects for > study. > > I assume that's not controversial. I can't imagine how it could be. > (Of course one can debate the value of anthropology as a discipline, > and whether it manages to achieve an objective approach but that is > another matter. Whatever its outcome, its aim is clear.) > > Now, today's art museum (as distinct e.g. from the art museum in the > 19thC for example) is like this in a way. There was a time - not so > long ago - when, say, African art was not allowed inside the door of > an art museum. It was just not seen as art. Gradually it got admitted, > until we have now reached the position where African art - like that > of lots of other cultures - is regarded as art just as much as > Rembrandt or Picasso. This is not about the quality of this or that > piece (which is why I thought your last paragraph not to the point). > It is about the status of the works of whole cultures. It does not > mean that just anything they produced gets inside the door, but it > does means that things are not excluded just because they are African > or whatever. > > This is why I said: "We do it [i.e. put cultures on an equal footing] > every time we walk into a major art museum today." Whatever we may > think about the quality of this or that piece, we don't think "Oh my > God, how could that be art? It's African!" (or Egyptian, or Indian or > whatever) > > Does that make my point clear? If so we can maybe move on... > > DA > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm > > ------------------ > > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:17 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ms Sullivan, > > > > I agree with everything you've written in the message below. I was too > > hasty in discounting the destruction of the object in my previous > message, > > and I'll have to rethink my comments. > > > > I suppose my reason for wanting to read Benjamin's notion of reproduction > in > > technical, rather than in something like metaphysical terms (where the > > latter focuses on the status of the represented object, or the > objectivity > > of the work itself) is due to the fact that such a reading implicates a > > further concept, namely that of autonomy, which Benjamin doesn't discuss > as > > far as I remember (I promise to reread the essays -- there are three > > versions of it, only one of which was published by the Zeitschrift fuer > > Sozialforschung -- and write something specifically on aura and > > authenticity). But perhaps Autonomy is precisely the point. > > > > I'll respond with something more substantive tonight, after work when I > have > > some free time. > > > > Mr Allan: I didn't cite anything from the books I mentioned for several > > reasons. First, I have better things to do than type pages and pages of > > material into an email, which wouldn't be read anyway (remember you asked > > for arguments. And arguments run for dozens of pages, if not a book > chapter > > or two). Second, I don't have the books to hand at this time, so > couldn't > > quote from them, even if I was truly inclined. Third, if you're really > > interested, you can go to the library yourself and read the books. > Fourth, > > since you consistently refuse to offer any help or insight into your > claims, > > I feel little obligation to go out of my way to reproduce material for > you > > on request. I had asked several times for clarification, and received > > none--not even an acknowledgement of my request. These hardly amount to > a > > reciprocal situation of the sort you are now complaining that we lack. > > > > Finally apropos the last paragraph you have mentioned: it is a reductio > ad > > absurdem argument. If you don't feel its force, feel free to explain > why. > > I could have just as easily said that Bougereau and Cabanel are in > museums > > too, but, according to you, they are not art. That would have made the > same > > point. > > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:13 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > One of Benjamin's major concerns, however, is the concrete manner of > >> > presentation (Dartsellung) employed by a work of art, rather than > >> representational > >> > content as such. I think the idea of Aura is meant to capture a > >> distinction > >> > in presentation rather than representation. It highlights, I believe, > >> the > >> > difference between individual, unique works, which require individual, > >> solitary > >> > attention (an 'I' returning the gaze of a 'Thou'). So I don't think we > >> need > >> > to force the issue of mechanical processes producing something that > >> doesn't > >> > exist in itself, as it were (Benjamin is discussing, technische > >> > Reproduzierbarkeit, not mechanische Reproduzierbarkeit [technical, not > >> mechanical > >> > reproduction]); It's a question of techniques inherent to a medium, > not > >> of > >> mechanism > >> > simpliciter. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> He says that the object of itself had a physical presence composed of > its > >> history and cultural practices. He says that when the image-in the sense > of > >> a > >> secondary portrayal is multiplied then the physical presence of > the > >> object is not present in the secondary image,itself an object > without > >> the > >> history of the object itself. He says this destroys perception of the > >> physical presenceof the object itself. He also seems to say that it > is > >> the > >> number > >> of gazes which help to destroy the physical presence,and that these > gazes > >> can > >> gaze because of the number of images of the work. He seems to imply > that > >> it is the number of images of the object easily accessible to the > number > >> of > >> gazes which does the damage-the culmulative effect of a lot of people > who > >> would not ordinarily have been able to see the object itself looking > at > >> many > >> images of the object destroys the perception of the physical presence of > >> the > >> object itself when at last it is reached. The object itself has not
