Theme: Critical Media Studies

This theme discusses critical media studies. Before the lecture and the seminar we are to read two texts; "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity" (1936) written by Walter Benjamin and Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception"). Below follows my thoughts on the questions.

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

a. What is "Enlightenment"?

The Enlightment period took place in the late 17th century and is based on rationality and reason. This instead of myths and fantasies, that previously dominated the society. The purpose of the enlightment is to explain everything to avoid fearfulness among humans.

b. What is "dialectic"?

When two sides have different opinion on something the Dialectic method can be used. It consists of both parties listening to each other and then together come up with the best solution or the correct answer, i.e. the truth. To know what is true, you must so to speak know what is not-true.

c. What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism determines what exists and what doesn’t exist. Basically nominalism says that all objects you can scientifically prove exists while illusions (abstract objects), such as spirits, doesn’t exist according to nominalism. You can say that nominalism is in line with or encourage enlightenment if you look at it this way.

d. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

According to Adorno and Horkheimer, myths are made-up explanations created by humans. They mean that the reason for humans to make up myths is to feel safer and not as afraid of the “not-knowing”. Adorno and Horkheimer are not big fans of myths since they push for enlightenment and true (scientifically proved) knowledge.

2. "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

a. 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?

I interpret Benjamin's text as substructure being the parts building the superstructure. When Benjamin, for example mentions paintings, painters, cameramen and photographs, he is talking about objects directly connected to the production, i.e the substructure. The superstructure on the other hand is more complex. All the pieces of the subculture together makes the superstructure, such as the whole culture field, which Benjamin discusses in the text.

This cultural production is interesting to look at from a Marxist perspective because it tells you a lot about (in this case) culture. What is happening and what will happen with the culture? The substructure can change fairly fast while the superstructure, of course, takes longer time to change. Benjamin spends, for example, a great time of discussing the ability to reproduce paintings and the invention of the camera. He means that some of the aura is lost because the new technology. I especially liked the quote:

“/.../ while resting on a summer afternoon, you follow with your eyes a mountain range on the horizon or a branch which casts its shadow over you, you experience the aura of those mountains, of that branch”.

I interpret this as that you have to actually be there to experience the “right” aura. A photograph won’t do it. A painting would kind of do the aura for you, since you need to interpret the painting compared to the photograph where you basically don’t need to think at all in order to perceive the experience. In other words, with the new technology of reproduction, the substructure is changing as well as the superstructure in the culture field.

b. 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?

Because of the new technology, such as the camera and ability to reproduce objects (reproduction), Benjamin means that (as written above) the culture is changing and also how we think of culture and other areas, thus Benjamin thinks culture have a revolutionary potential. Before the only option where to interpret yourselves what characters in a book look like. However, now with movies you get the characters appaerance served to you. In addition to this, movies/books/art are easier distributed which leads to more people having access to it. Benjamin is not a big fan of any of this. He means that the art gets ruined while Adorno & Horkheimer embrace this because knowledge is easier spread (enlightened).

c. 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).

Benjamin means that perception can be split in two. The natural perception is determined upon our senses, feelings and experiences. This while the historical perception rather is determined by historical events. Our perception depends both on what we feel and sense but also because of our history. Benjamin mentions for example: “

The fifth century, with its great shifts of population, saw the birth of the late Roman art industry and the Vienna Genesis, and there developed not only an art different from that of antiquity but also a new kind of perception.”

d. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

I interpret Benjamin as the aura of objects are unique and not changed by time and space. With the example of the mountain, mentioned above, Benjamin means that you have to experience the shadow of the mountain and be there in order to perceive its aura. For sure you can see a picture of it but then you don’t get the same aura. I’m not sure if Benjamin means that you don’t perceive any aura at all. However I think you do, but a different kind of aura. In order to understand this, I thought of a picture of a sunset compared to actually experience the sunset in real time. There’s for sure a difference in time and space where, at least I think, you loose some of the, let’s say “feeling” or aura if you’d like.

I think there’s a slightly difference between natural objects’ aura and art objects’ aura. However they are as complex but only experienced in different ways. Of course you loose some of the aura if you see a poster of a painting instead of the actual painting. However you can still choose when to look at the painting compared to for example the sunset where you have to take the sun’s position in consideration. I guess this is different depending on what you are looking at so my final conclusion is that all objects’ auras are unique, but perhaps art objects’ aura aren’t as dependent on time and space as natural objects’ aura.