posted by dennisn on September 2nd, 2012 at 8:04AM

Terrible essay. I could write numerous essays on how bad it was. I hardly know where to begin. And I'm not talking about his tedious writing style -- I'm talking about the incoherent content. I wasn't sure if this was a communist manifesto (large chunks of it, like the entire beginning and end, had nothing to do with art, but merely retarded irrational (There is no conscious entity called a "social class" that has any coherent shared goal, or rights, or purpose. Nor is it possible to have a "classless" society. Nor is "exploitation of the proletariat" necessarily a bad thing -- usually it's a good thing. I can go on.) communist propaganda), a shallow critique of a narrow spectrum of "Art", or the ramblings of an avid new motion-picture fan.

His ugly and confused mind, as proven by his communist beliefs, is equally evident in his analysis of "art". First of all, he never explains what he means when he says "art". What he actually means is State-art. That is, art that would fit within a king's house. He does not mean graffiti, Hentai, or any of the countless "unofficial" forms that haven't yet been christened by Art Professors in prestigious Art Schools. So right away we can safely dismiss the essay, IMHO. Any art that an evil dictator would enjoy, is hardly art worth having or spending time on; assuming the purpose of art is to spread a political message. If it's merely aesthetic art, than it's shallow and so also safe to dismiss.

He constantly refers to the phrase "the masses" -- their reactions, motivations, goals -- which is highly insulting even for me to hear, even though he probably wouldn't include me among them. He would mention "the reaction of the masses toward art." What does that mean?! In any crowd you'll have an entire spectrum of views, that vary diametrically. "The masses" is another retarded communist term that doesn't actually exist, like an individual exists. An individual can have a reaction. A crowd -- not so much.

Moreover, just as he zooms out to the less-sensical group level of "social classes" in politics, and "the masses", he does the same in his conceptions of "art". In (iv) he refers to "the total function of art". And, the criticism is the same. Just as there are no rights for "social classes", only for individuals (if you're a statist :s), there is no single function of art, only a zillion different functions, by a zillion different individuals. Any kind of analysis on this zoomed-out level is about pointless.

In (vii) he discusses "the nineteenth-century dispute as to the artistic value of painting versus photography". Who disputed this? Why, his prestigious Art Professors, of course -- not the countless photographers of the time, nor the countless fans of both. Should we care what they think? No. Artistic value is entirely subjective. Dedicating an entire essay to arguing about people's subjective preferences, with an air of objectivity and authority -- is pretty close to the epitome of absurdity IMHO.

He refers to some concept of "aura" many times, starting in (iii), which I was never able to understand. Did you?

He mentions some concept of a lack of "ritual" that modern technology is causing. He provides only a few strange examples (In (v) he claims that those earliest known cave paintings were created out of some cultish magic ritual. Which is simply wild speculation, and probably not true), and omits all the infinite rituals of modern "art" consumption, so I am highly skeptical that this is in fact occurring. He never properly defines what constitutes a "ritual", nor does he provide any statistics, so the entire discussion is almost pointless.

The entire second half of the essay is devoted to rambling about how some Hollywood movies are made. (Obviously not about how amateur films are made, or other types not worth discussing in prestigious Art Schools.) He seems to have a positive perspective on technology, which is nice. But I think he's fighting a strawman. Or at least an irrelevant-man. Nobody (relevant) is claiming that tecchnology /isn't/ extremely useful and beneficial.

In the end, I feel like I have wasted a good chunk of my life reading this essay. I have no idea what the take-home message is. In fact, I can't think of a SINGLE coherent message that it produces. Can you?

Link

posted by dennisn on August 25th, 2012 at 12:21AM

I'll choose the next one. This one will be due the following Friday 31st?

EDIT2: deadline extended to Sunday September 2nd
EDIT1: a link to it: http://www.marxists.org/r.../ge/benjamin.htm

Link