I found this second week to be somewhat easier than the first. The texts were still hard to read, but what i took with me from the first week made it a bit easier to understand them. Still it took a long time to go through them, look up words and extract what was necessary to get a good grasp on the subject.
Since I understood, or thought I did, more this week I was more active under the seminar and tried to talk as much as I could. I continued to do as I did last seminar and asked questions of that which I had not understood but this time complemented them with my own opinions of what I thought was the point of the questions.
Like last week I found the seminar to be much more informative than the lecture. The lecturer was more personal and slower paced this time than on the lecture which made it easier to follow. In our discussion-group we had mostly interpreted the texts similar to each other, but what I found most interesting was the fact that I had got big parts of the texts entirely wrong. My interpretation was that A&H liked movies and photography, and the revolutionary potential behind them because they made it easier to spread knowledge, instead I learned that they really thought the opposite. They feel that movies and similar technology don't contribute to society because they make people dream instead of act. Benjamin on the other hand stood behind these technologies because when copies of movies are made, the aura from the object is destroyed. This makes it easier for ordinary people to own art, to be a part of something they earlier in history couldn’t. It is liberating and gives ordinary people dignity.
I also learned a lot about nominalism, how words are just a social construct and that a nominalistic point of view is about how it’s not good to generalize. I learned about substructure and superstructure and how the substructure is the base of society and about platonic realism and its abstractness.
I thought it was interesting how you described how you contributed to this week’s theme in comparison to other themes. I also had misunderstood several parts of the text (especially nominalism) and realized what they actually meant after the lecture and seminar. Your posts were very well written and your explanation of the concepts revolutionary potential in art and aura helped me understand these better.
SvaraRaderaHi,
SvaraRaderaGreat summary. I got confused myself with the concepts of revolutionary potential between Benjamin and A & H. I'm aware that the latter referred to the American consumerism and therefore did not see any potential, because mass media was more like a deception and presentation of the status quo than a vision. But Benjamin on the other hand argued, that ordinary people finally get dignified in culture/art, meaning there is a revolutionary potential.
I have therefore trouble to compare these two, because for Adorno and Horkheimer, it is not about the fact, that people are finally being shown in mass media, but that it's a repeating pattern of how they are shown, while Benjamin is emphasizing, that not only the "royals" (e.g.) are dignified in media, but also normal people. For me that sounds like two different stories. Do you know what I mean?
I also realised during the seminar that I had the wrong idea about many of the concepts for this weeks theme. I especially had problems with the term "nominalism" which I had interpreted pretty much opposite to what it really is. Great to see that you felt more comfortable in participating in the seminar this week!
SvaraRaderaI'm glad I wasn't the only one who had interpreted the texts a bit backwards at first. I had gotten the impression that both of them disliked the potentials of art in the era of enlightenment, since they both brought up various points of things being lost and people being trapped, etc. But, as usual, the seminars and lectures cleared things up and that's great.
SvaraRaderaMaybe this reflection could however have elaborated a bit on platonic realism. I didn't understand it fully myself and as you seem to have understood it and mentioned it, it would have been good to explain it more.
I had also a hard time in understanding nominalism before the lecture and the seminar. In addition, I couldnt give a clear aswer about the opinion of Benjamin and A&H about art and the revolutionary potentinas. I am not sure if your reflections about A&H opion about art are the reflections that you had before the seminar or after the seminar. If it is your reflection after the seminar i think that it is not correct since Benjamine was more optimistic that the culture will change society, in contrast with A&H who argues that there are no revolution potentian and the things isnt going to get better. I am sorry if i misunderstood you reflection. Overall, you made a good job!
SvaraRaderaHi, i agree with you that this weeks theme was a bit easier to understand but like you i still misunderstood Benjamin´s and H&A´s view on the revolutionary potentials. But as i can read in reflections post i seems like we both understand it now. Fun that you felt that you could participate more during the seminar, for me it is during them I learn the most. I liked to read your posts for this theme and you managed to fill it with good facts and explanations.
SvaraRaderaHello!
SvaraRaderaI find both Adorno & Horkheimers as well as Benjamins reflections on culture with revolutionary potential interesting in your reflection. A&Hs perspective that movies actually make people dream instead of acting is especially interesting.
Nominalism only focuses on what's here in this world and no alternatives, realism focuses more on concepts and can give way to new structures through concepts (a kind of dreaming you would say). It is evident here that A&H aren't really satisfied with any of these mindsets, which I think is very interesting.
Hi!
SvaraRaderaFun reading that you felt that your contribution this week was bigger than the last. I can totally relate to not wanting to give own opinions when you don't feel that you have a clear idea yourself. Good reflection overall, easy to read and follow your experience of this theme. I had the same clarification regarding A&H verses Benjamin's view on the revolutionary potentials.
I only had one thing to add, at the end you say that "substructure is the base of society". Substructures are not only the base of society, it could also be the bases of a culture or religion. In other words the substructures adjoint is what makes a superstructure, such as society, culture or religion.
Keep up the good work!
It's impressive that you admit to misinterpreting parts of the texts, because from most blogs so far I felt tat I was the only one. Especially the part on Adorno and Horkheimer's stance on cinema was interesting, because to my mind cinema is one of the most potentially revolutionary forms of media, seeing as to how it can induce an emotional response to societal issues that might otherwise not be entirely fathomed by those unaffected by it.
SvaraRaderaHi,
SvaraRaderaGood reflection! I also have the feeling that t the seminar to be much more informative than the lecture. You mention that there was a time you had got big parts of the texts entirely wrong, you interpretation was that A&H liked movies and photography, and the revolutionary potential behind them because they made it easier to spread knowledge. The same as I am! I think your reflection resonates with me. Thanks a lot for sharing!