Theme 2 - Critical Media Studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment

1. What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment is empiricistic, based on logic, reason and natural laws and is an advancement of the earlier view of the world, which contained a lot of fear for the supernatural. That which are uncertain or impossible to measure is to be viewed with suspicion, this puts people in control and creates a sense of order.

2. What is "Dialectic"?

Dialectic means that for something to become what it is, it has to become what it’s not first. It’s a way of resolving disagreement. To get closer to the truth you first have to investigate different opinions and by reason reject what is false.

3. What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism states that universals, concepts are nothing but empty words, things that has no corresponding reality. It defines what is (individual objects), and what is not (abstract objects). It discards myths and encourages knowledge. In that way it supports the Enlightenment.

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

Myths are based of the unknown, the untrue and the cause for superstition and fear. Far from logic and reason. It’s used as an argument for Enlightenment, eliminate myths which in turn eliminates fear.

"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?

Superstructure is the production of cultural value such as religion, art or politics. Substructure is the general production of society, the material and economical value. In a Marxist perspective it is the general production that defines how the society will develop. That means that with a good base of well-functioning, rapidly improving substructure the superstructure will flourish and a more evolved society can be established.

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?

Photography can be seen as a revolutionary way of reproduction, and in the way it has the ability to influence a lot of people and to get information out quickly I think this form of culture definitely have revolutionary potential. Since this mechanical reproduction isn’t prone to one's own perception the core is fundamentally the same in a scientific way, which is great for the Enlightenment.

But because the image is developed from a negative, which can have multiple copies, it isn’t true art. I think Benjamins and Adorno & Horkheimer stands differ somewhat about this technological progress. I get the feeling that Benjamin thinks that it’s bad, because art loses its aura, its originality, but A&H on the other hand thinks that it’s good because it has the potential to spread 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).

Our senses gives us information which we then combine with earlier personal experiences, knowledge of history and reason. This reminds me of a posteriori knowledge, the perception we get are strongly influenced by our backgrounds and how we have interpreted similar situations in the past. In enough time, even the view of our whole existence could change depending on how history and personal interpretation has gradually changed our perception of reality.

An example Benjamin wrote about is how a drastic change in the Roman population created the huge art industry and changed how the Romans perceived art.

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 concept of “aura” as being a “unique phenomenon of distance”. The real physical distance doesn’t matter. He gives an example of this by explaining the aura of natural things. If you follow a branch with your eyes and the branch casts a shadow on you, you feel the aura of the branch.

Art is a way of disconnecting from reality by removing limitations and distance, to get closer to something. In that way my interpretation is that genuine art has an aura, as long as it is authentic and not a copy. When something is duplicated the original thought behind the piece gets stripped away, the uniqueness of the piece is no more, which simultaneously destroys it’s aura.