Last week, our second theme was based on Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction[1]" and Adorno and Horkheimer's "Dialectic of Enlightenment[2]".There were lots of interesting things I'd never thought before the class.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Walter Benjamin was a Jewish philosopher who lived a wandering life and committed suicide on the eve of going to the U.S. That was definitely a pity. In this essay,Benjamin discussed a lot about commercialism,capitalism and communism in order to find how culture (in its new age) relate to politics and in order to try to reveal that German national socialism was horrible when it wasn't obvious to everyone at that time. He thought it was dangerous if we only took everything for granted, just like most people in that time. What is interesting during the seminar is that our cognition changed with the development of technology. In 18th century, running horses were portrayed that while running, its four hooves were all in the midair. But in the 19th century, with the development of photograph, all of sudden, people realized that horse didn't look like that.They were running in a totally different way, which horses always hold one leg on the ground while running. This was what Benjamin proposed indeed. With the aid of technique and new media, people could start realizing that world actually is not actually as they thought was, just like the view on running horse. In that time, government used media to take control of people’s minds. But Benjamin was optimistic about mechanical reproduction and he want to use the new technique to make art reachable for ordinary people and to evoke people’s reconsideration of the world. Although it has big disadvantages of losing the aura of art, at the same time,every one can have the chance to enjoy the art,which is called exhibition value.He tried to use this way to be against Fascism.
Dialectic of Enlightenment
As for Dialectic of Enlightenment, I think is more difficult than Benjamin’s essay. In the seminar I knew that after they arrived at the U.S, they realized people are not enlightened in this country. people are blind by American commercialism to the extent that they didn't think. They tried to find how can we safeguard enlightenment and how can we make it survive. Then they based this essay on myth. How can we understand this? Maybe enlightenment has something in common with myth. I think that myth is characterized by the fare of unknown, it tried to imitate the nature in order to explain the unknown. When we are over enlightened,We just reproducing the world and just reproduce the natural process. We seems to be against the fundamental idea of enlightenment. That means we will have ended up mindless factor in enlightenment thought. Then the enlightenment seems equal to myth. Adorno and Horkheimer also emphasize the "Nominalism". In other words, they want to emphasize the "uniqueness"and "individual" of object in order to let people think what they perceive. One interesting point during the class is that I misunderstand the meaning of "dialectic"in this text. I thought "dialectic" just is a conversational method in order to find out some truth, just like Plato’s and Socrates’s. Whereas Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer all came from Marx background and had some differences. Marx discussed the material as conversation dialectical point of view but involves around history. For example, first you have one condition in history. This condition is contradicted with the opposite condition, and then result into the third alternative one. Then the third alternative becomes basic condition again which we can against it and develop it. This is a sort of developments over history to gain more and more knowledge. There were also differences between Benjamin and Adorno and Horkheimer. Benjamin didn't mean to give the answer to you. He posed a question for you and meant to make you to consider your own alternatives. Whereas Adorno and Horkheimer expressed their worries on how to safeguard the enlightenment(I'm not sure).
(u1ucvszr)
References：
[1]Walter Benjamin The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction trans.by Harry Zohn(2005)
[2]Adorno och Horkheimer Dialectic of Enlightenment trans. by Edmund Jephcott
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Walter Benjamin was a Jewish philosopher who lived a wandering life and committed suicide on the eve of going to the U.S. That was definitely a pity. In this essay,Benjamin discussed a lot about commercialism,capitalism and communism in order to find how culture (in its new age) relate to politics and in order to try to reveal that German national socialism was horrible when it wasn't obvious to everyone at that time. He thought it was dangerous if we only took everything for granted, just like most people in that time. What is interesting during the seminar is that our cognition changed with the development of technology. In 18th century, running horses were portrayed that while running, its four hooves were all in the midair. But in the 19th century, with the development of photograph, all of sudden, people realized that horse didn't look like that.They were running in a totally different way, which horses always hold one leg on the ground while running. This was what Benjamin proposed indeed. With the aid of technique and new media, people could start realizing that world actually is not actually as they thought was, just like the view on running horse. In that time, government used media to take control of people’s minds. But Benjamin was optimistic about mechanical reproduction and he want to use the new technique to make art reachable for ordinary people and to evoke people’s reconsideration of the world. Although it has big disadvantages of losing the aura of art, at the same time,every one can have the chance to enjoy the art,which is called exhibition value.He tried to use this way to be against Fascism.
Dialectic of Enlightenment
As for Dialectic of Enlightenment, I think is more difficult than Benjamin’s essay. In the seminar I knew that after they arrived at the U.S, they realized people are not enlightened in this country. people are blind by American commercialism to the extent that they didn't think. They tried to find how can we safeguard enlightenment and how can we make it survive. Then they based this essay on myth. How can we understand this? Maybe enlightenment has something in common with myth. I think that myth is characterized by the fare of unknown, it tried to imitate the nature in order to explain the unknown. When we are over enlightened,We just reproducing the world and just reproduce the natural process. We seems to be against the fundamental idea of enlightenment. That means we will have ended up mindless factor in enlightenment thought. Then the enlightenment seems equal to myth. Adorno and Horkheimer also emphasize the "Nominalism". In other words, they want to emphasize the "uniqueness"and "individual" of object in order to let people think what they perceive. One interesting point during the class is that I misunderstand the meaning of "dialectic"in this text. I thought "dialectic" just is a conversational method in order to find out some truth, just like Plato’s and Socrates’s. Whereas Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer all came from Marx background and had some differences. Marx discussed the material as conversation dialectical point of view but involves around history. For example, first you have one condition in history. This condition is contradicted with the opposite condition, and then result into the third alternative one. Then the third alternative becomes basic condition again which we can against it and develop it. This is a sort of developments over history to gain more and more knowledge. There were also differences between Benjamin and Adorno and Horkheimer. Benjamin didn't mean to give the answer to you. He posed a question for you and meant to make you to consider your own alternatives. Whereas Adorno and Horkheimer expressed their worries on how to safeguard the enlightenment(I'm not sure).
(u1ucvszr)
References：
[1]Walter Benjamin The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction trans.by Harry Zohn(2005)
[2]Adorno och Horkheimer Dialectic of Enlightenment trans. by Edmund Jephcott
Really great reflection, it seems like you have grasped to content quite well! The running horse example is excellent, it really portrays how our ways of thinking changed with the birth of technology. It's both awesome and a little scary to see how powerful technology and media is in terms of politics and views. About nominalism, didn't Adorno and Horkheimer criticize it since by seeing objects just as they are, we are prevented from thinking how they could be, which in turn would prevent revolutionary thoughts and change? Great comparisons between the texts as well!
ReplyDeletethanks for your sharing. you have made a very clear point and good example in both text. it helps my understandings alot. i also come to think of today's media i think Benjamin is a genius. the point of media theseday even the develop of social media and all aim to bring light to mass, it is just like what benjamin hope for. but what A&H found is just one big obstacle that we have to go through and still have to go through these days still. nice wrap up on the last sentence it really make things clear.
ReplyDeletenice work. i enjoy reading :)
Once again, this week I enjoyed reading your reflections. I think you have done a great job and you have understood most of the points of the texts. I like that you have mentioned some historical information about the background of the authors, which clear up some things in my mind. Benjamin has found revolutionary potentials in the media, like the running horse you mentioned, or the humans’ dignity in some movies. However, A&H have opposite opinion about that. Maybe all we need is to find a balance. Also this makes me wonder it is possible to benefit from media and technology without having any side effect.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading you reflection. I think you summurized this week well. However I would like to see more of your own opinion. You mention that Benjain and A&H has different opinions but what do you think? I think both text have good arguments for their stake but culture have changed since then. It would have been intresting to hear what you thinked of this. Your explanation of dialectic I really enjoyed. I had the same understanding as you before the week.
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteYou have a really structured and thought through reflection! I find the part where you discuss how people before photography thought that horses ran by basically hopping forvard with all four hoves off the ground and lated in the photos of horses could see that this perception was compleatly wrong! It is facinating to thing about what we today take for truths because we do not yet have the tools to find what really is! What if our concept of black holes is completly off simply because we cannot see beyond them (yet?)!
Really good text about this theme! I especially liked your own examples, they came with a different input than I've thought about before. It's true that technology helps us understanding. It's also good to read about the historical context - before attending the seminar I didn't realize that it wasn't obvious to everyone at that time that German national socialism was awful. To have that understanding is important when reading the texts. As a comment above said, it would be interesting to read more about your own opinions on the subject! Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteExcellent post work! I can see you had a great understanding of the two text and covered most of the points at the course. You write in a very detailed way for what teachers show our in the course, one thing interested me is that you mentioned the horse "always hold one leg on the ground while running". Didn't it reflect that human perceiving the world sometimes is not the truth due to our current knowledgement? You also have a good explaination of nominalism linked to you text. Keep up, i am enjoy in it.
ReplyDeleteYou give a very clear summary of both texts in your reflection! One gets a good picture of the entire theme after reading this. The historical context is especially something I found interesting and learnt during this theme's lecture.
ReplyDeleteBut I for one would find it interesting to read some more of your own personal thoughts about your learning process during the theme!
Keep up the good work!
Hi,you really did a structured summary in a great details to immerse there notions in the specific context.It facilitates a reachable access to help me make sense in the historical and natural aspect.Your view of our cognition changes as the progressive techniques is quiet similar with our perception which is naturally and historically determined.Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteHi , you did such a great job ! I love this blog . I can see that you do have very great understanding about these articles , and you did such clear and brief summary makes everything so clear . And the historical context you write is really interesting to learn about . What you wrote about Banjamin's point that " He was optimistic about mechanical reproduction and he want to use the new technique to make art reachable for ordinary people and to evoke people’s reconsideration of the world" I think you did a great summary about the spiritual of his core view . Keep up with the good work!
ReplyDelete