Dialectic of Enlightenment
1. What is "Enlightenment"?
Enlightenment according to Adorno and Horkheimer is “mythical fear radicalized” (p.11) and is used to “dispel myths, to overthrow fantasy with knowledge” (p.1). In other words, enlightenment was a new way of thinking, a more scientific approach to the previous superstition that was prevalent in society. With enlightenment came criticism and knowledge, which also turned the power over to the bourgeois instead of the royals and the priests.
2. What is "Dialectic"?
'Dialectic' is, according to the dictionary, “a method of examining and discussing opposing ideas in order to find the truth”. This basically means to thoroughly analyze a concept through dialogue from different perspectives and try to arrive to a conclusion that is most truthful. In a way, ‘enlightenment’ is dialectic since it also criticizes and questions itself as stated in the text, which makes it strong enough to shatter myths and become the new truth.
3. What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
‘Nominalism’ is a theory where objects which can be described by the same name, for example two trees (the name here being ‘tree’), have nothing in common except for their name. Generally, abstract concepts are treated as names instead of realities. It is probably an important concept in the text since nominalism treats objects and concepts individually and doesn’t allow generalization and fantasy, which sounds like a good quality found in dialectic methods and enlightenment.
4. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
‘Myth’ as explained by Adorno and Horkheimer, is fantasy and stories that is designed to awake fear in people, and in doing so controlling them (an example from the past is the church). Enlightenment is described as the antidote for this concept, as it shatters the falsehood of the myths and tells the truth about the world.
The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity
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?
Since the two terms were not explained in sufficient detail in the text, I had to google them in order to find out what was actually going on. Turns out that they were coined by Karl Marx himself, and are theoretical concepts used to describe human society. 'Superstructure' means all aspects in society that don’t include production (so no factories, land or material), such as political structure, ideology, social institutions and culture etc. The 'substructure' would be the economic structure of a society, whether it’s capitalistic or socialistic etc. As Benjamin states, the superstructure changes much more slowly than the substructure, but they do go hand in hand and can be analyzed in order to see how culture (and other subjects) have developed in the history of our society.
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 mainly focuses on two cultural subjects, mechanical reproduction and photography, which both have revolutionary potentials. As for reproduction, it made it possible to reproduce works of art and severely increase the distribution to the general public, creating a new sort of media powerful enough to affect politics and ideology. Then came photography, which “accelerated the pictorial reproduction so enormously that it could keep pace with speech” (Benjamin Part I), making way for the movie industry. Adorno and Horkheimer also speak of revolutionary ideas which derive from culture and knowledge.
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).
Benjamin argues that our perception has changed with our society and culture, and gives an example of the late Roman art industry of the 5th century, where the art style changed and became more realistic and inspired by the ancient greek artform (Benjamin Part III). When replication became popular, it destroyed the “aura” of the art, and therefore also changed the way we perceive it. One could probably say that our perception within the field of art depends on the artform of the time, as we perceive a painting or a photograph through the brush strokes of the artist or the lens of a camera. Thus we not only perceive it through our eyes, but also through the eyes of the one who created the art piece. Naturally determined perception could be the perception which we have biologically (such as color vision etc).
4. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
Benjamin describes the term “aura” as something unique and authentic, something that is perceived in the presence and cannot be replicated. In natural objects, the aura is created by distance and space, which could be the shadow cast from a tree branch or the reflection on water surface. As for art, the aura vanishes if the art is replicated, or if for example an actor is watched through a camera lens instead of on a stage in person (Benjamin Part IX).
Question: “Because faith is unavoidably tied to knowledge as its friend or its foe, faith perpetuates the split in the struggle to overcome knowledge: its fanaticism is the mark of its untruth, the objective admission that anyone who only believes for that reason no longer believes” (The Concept of Enlightenment p.14) What does it mean with “faith”, is it faith in God/higher power or something else?
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?
Since the two terms were not explained in sufficient detail in the text, I had to google them in order to find out what was actually going on. Turns out that they were coined by Karl Marx himself, and are theoretical concepts used to describe human society. 'Superstructure' means all aspects in society that don’t include production (so no factories, land or material), such as political structure, ideology, social institutions and culture etc. The 'substructure' would be the economic structure of a society, whether it’s capitalistic or socialistic etc. As Benjamin states, the superstructure changes much more slowly than the substructure, but they do go hand in hand and can be analyzed in order to see how culture (and other subjects) have developed in the history of our society.
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 mainly focuses on two cultural subjects, mechanical reproduction and photography, which both have revolutionary potentials. As for reproduction, it made it possible to reproduce works of art and severely increase the distribution to the general public, creating a new sort of media powerful enough to affect politics and ideology. Then came photography, which “accelerated the pictorial reproduction so enormously that it could keep pace with speech” (Benjamin Part I), making way for the movie industry. Adorno and Horkheimer also speak of revolutionary ideas which derive from culture and knowledge.
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).
Benjamin argues that our perception has changed with our society and culture, and gives an example of the late Roman art industry of the 5th century, where the art style changed and became more realistic and inspired by the ancient greek artform (Benjamin Part III). When replication became popular, it destroyed the “aura” of the art, and therefore also changed the way we perceive it. One could probably say that our perception within the field of art depends on the artform of the time, as we perceive a painting or a photograph through the brush strokes of the artist or the lens of a camera. Thus we not only perceive it through our eyes, but also through the eyes of the one who created the art piece. Naturally determined perception could be the perception which we have biologically (such as color vision etc).
4. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
Benjamin describes the term “aura” as something unique and authentic, something that is perceived in the presence and cannot be replicated. In natural objects, the aura is created by distance and space, which could be the shadow cast from a tree branch or the reflection on water surface. As for art, the aura vanishes if the art is replicated, or if for example an actor is watched through a camera lens instead of on a stage in person (Benjamin Part IX).
Question: “Because faith is unavoidably tied to knowledge as its friend or its foe, faith perpetuates the split in the struggle to overcome knowledge: its fanaticism is the mark of its untruth, the objective admission that anyone who only believes for that reason no longer believes” (The Concept of Enlightenment p.14) What does it mean with “faith”, is it faith in God/higher power or something else?
Sources
Horkheimer & Adorno (1944). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press, California.
Benjamin, W (1936). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Schocken/Random House.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nominalism
http://sociology.about.com/od/Key-Theoretical-Concepts/fl/Base-and-Superstructure.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment