1. What is "Enlightenment"?
In the beginning of the book enlightenment is defined as "the advance of thought" (p.1). The enhancement of the human understanding goes over the simplicity of nature. So knowledge is an outcome of enlightenment and the knowledge of men has no limits. To be enlightened we have to be aware of "calculability and utility" (p. 3). Everything whose existense can‘t be explained by these two factors, has to be questioned and reflected. Despite this statement the authors claim that "myth becomes enlightenment and nature mere objectivity" (p.6), but at the same time enlightenment is thereby in the position of destroying myths.
2. What is "Dialectic"?
Dialectical thinking is based on the assumption that "each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not" (p.11), but this might lead us limited understanding. So it is rather giving us "each image as a script" (p.18) and it is in our hands to read and interpret the script to allow the understanding of the non-truth and lead us through that to the truth. So it is basically the investigation of truth.
3. What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism can be explained as the theory that all things are simply names. It is important, because it emphasises the understanding of the world as it is, despite the mystical perspective to the world.
4. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
Myth is an imaginary truth that shall explain the world. Especially the unexplainable. It seems like Adorna and Horkheimer see a strong connection between myth and enlightenment. Myth, same as enlightenment, is something that lies outside our direct preception of nature. They are somehow tied to each other, but through enlightenment the possiblity of falsifying myth is given.
Benjamin, W. - The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity (1936)
1. In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?
Superstructure is defined as slowly adapting structure to a cultural frame. Compared to that the transformation of substructure porcesses way faster than the transformation of the superstructure. In this context it means that cultural changes always show up later than the circumstances that induced them. Through analyzing the cultural production and interpreting it, the substructure‘s assumptions regarding the superstucture can be made and used as a weapon when it comes to a revolution.
2. Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?
Benjamin states that "art sensed the approaching crisis which has become evident a century later". According to this the revolutionary potential in art is to announce or prepare for upcoming revolutionary changes. Further the art of the film has different revolutionary potentials. First it has the potential to give a critical perspective to traditional concepts of art. Second a revolutionary function of film is the combination of artistic and scientific use. In comparison to photography or paintings a film gives access to deeper and more more prespectively perception. Scenes or observations can be isolated and investigated separately. In contrast to that Adorno & Horkheimer believe rather in the revolutionary potential of technology and science.
3. Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).
Natural determined perception of world through senses is strongly linked to the perception of aura. He defines it as "the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be". Historical determined perception of world through senses: Historically seen there have been transitions in the human perceptions. They were determined by visionarists like Riegl and Wickhoff who revalued older pieces of art through resiting to classical traditions. That influenced the preception of world for the future. Another historically determined perception is the view on the shape of the world. In early times people assumed the world to be flat, but after it was found out that this is not the case the perception was ongoingly changed.
4. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
Aura is explained by Benjamin as the experience of nature, the sensing of it. It is something that surronds objects without being virtually existent. Natural objects, compared to art objects, have some kind of authenticy. The catching of natural objects and the reproduction of those replaces authenticy with with a more detailed version of the natural object. Perceptions can be made, that couldn‘t have been seen – or sensed – before. Furthermore the aura is the presence of the natural object. The presence is the main thing that you are losing when you transform natural objects into art, like photography, etc. So art objects are missing out the aura as Benjamin defines it for natural objects.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen