I thought both of the texts were interesting and brought up some compelling thoughts about how we can perceive objects, different views of the world and our society, what we can attribute to art and what it is capable of, and what the uniqueness of objects is.
I read the texts before writing my blogpost for the theme, and then looked through the most interesting portions again before the seminar.
At the lecture some of the concepts and expressions became clearer, but it was at the seminar it all sank in.
In the seminar we discussed how realism as we see it today compares to classic/Platonic realism and that Platonic realism is the opposite of nominalism. By this I learnt that in realism there is such a thing as an original and unique object for all types of objects that all other objects we see are reflections of.
We then talked about the texts we had read before the seminar and came to these conclusions:
Adorno and Horkheimer thought that mass media disarms the people by, in for example cinema, depicting the world as it currently is in reality, and by doing that stabilizes society and prevents revolution.
Benjamin believed that mass media gives dignity to the working class by portraying them in cinema, and that with zooming, cutting, slow motion, music etc. we can realize that the world isn’t as we thought it was (for example how we learnt how horses run by filming them). This was what gave media and culture it’s revolutionary potential.
When Benjamin talks about historically determined perception he means that the context in which we perceive things affects our perception. We then talked about how all art changes historically, and because of this there is no such thing as “good art”.
Aura is the here and now of the object. Mass production takes away from an object’s aura, but also removes the privilege of the rich and the leaders. This gives it revolutionary potential.
This week’s subject matter was easier to grasp than what we went through in our first week, and for that I am thankful.
Benjamin believed that mass media gives dignity to the working class by portraying them in cinema, and that with zooming, cutting, slow motion, music etc. we can realize that the world isn’t as we thought it was (for example how we learnt how horses run by filming them). This was what gave media and culture it’s revolutionary potential.
When Benjamin talks about historically determined perception he means that the context in which we perceive things affects our perception. We then talked about how all art changes historically, and because of this there is no such thing as “good art”.
Aura is the here and now of the object. Mass production takes away from an object’s aura, but also removes the privilege of the rich and the leaders. This gives it revolutionary potential.
Hi,
ReplyDeletesuch a great reflection. You brought up and explained the main aspects of theme 2 very clearly. Especially, I like that you came up with very important key words regarding aura. That aura is here and now and introduced how demolishment of aura leads to revolutionary potential. Well done!
It is interesting how well you have summarized and collected all the bits of the information one could get from those readings, the lecture and the seminar. I think you have done a fantastic job. You have compared Benjamin’s view on mass media with Adorno and Horgeimer’s quite well. I think you have written a quite compelling text!
ReplyDeleteHey!
ReplyDeleteYou seem that you were very prepared for the lectures and the seminars. I agree that at the seminar, everything sinked in. For me, the discussions and putting things to earth with examples always make concepts and ideas more understandable.
I agree with all of your conclusions for this theme, but one thing I don't quite understand is why aura has the potential for revolution? Is it because of some objects or natural location uniqueness that it is worth fighting for and try to make a difference?!
Hello !
ReplyDeleteI like how you've summarized everything in a way it's clear you've understood the key points and the links between them.
You point out in a very precise way the differences between Adorno and Benjamin's views in regards to mass culture.
Concerning historically determined perception, i agree with the fact that because the way we receive and perceive art is highly dependent on our historical context, there is no "good art". That's something we can tie with Fascism, he way it's branding their own art as "the best" when there's actually no way to compare art. Just another example of how both texts denounce fascism, and the consumers' society...
Thank you for your interesting post !
Hej,
ReplyDeleteYou present Benjamin's and Adorno & Horkheimer's views in a clearly way that can see you have a good understanding in this theme. However, benjamin expressed an endorsed view of the emergence and development of camera and film, even some of his arguments shows negative message.
I also agree what you said that "there is not good art" anymore, the value of an art will depending on the time it exist. Whatever, nice work!
I, like you, also thought this weeks texts and concepts were a lot easier than those of week one. I feel like you understood Adorno & Horkheimer's text better than Benjamin's but I still think you summarized the week in a good way that is easy to understand. Good work!
ReplyDeleteHey! Good job on summarising the concepts in a clear and understandable way. It feels like you really grasped and understand it. Like you said, platonic realism is the opposite of nominalism and I think it is important to be able to interpret the world in both ways for us to go towards a better future.
ReplyDeleteGreat job!