This week’s theme was Critical media studies. We read two texts from
Walter Benjamin and Adorno & Horkheimer. And this is my reflection after
the lecture and seminar of both texts.
Before the lecture I did not understand why substructure and superstructure
were relevant for the text. With the example: a phone is substructure and apps
are superstructure it became clear to me. If for an example somebody buys a
company from somebody else, changes occurs in the sense of new technology
developments. Not only the company will change, the product can change too, as
the substructure influences superstructure. Because of the lack of
understanding I couldn’t formulate the right answer to explain why I taught it
was important to analyze this from a Marxist perspective.
I couldn't find out what was meant with nominalism in the text, so I searched for the definition of the word, but the question on why it is important for the
text, I couldn't answer correctly. During the seminar it became clear to me
that it is important, because Nominalism is the theory of not believing in
abstract object and/or universals. Universals could be seen as categorizations.
According to Adorno and Horkheimer our culture is based on regularities
and necessities and because of this we categorize everything and this has led
to generalizations and oppression. An example is how we call every table-‘ a table’,
it doesn’t matter if it is made out of wood or from rattan, we have categorized
it as a table and we reject the fact that there are different tables and don’t
categorize them in their differences. Adorno and Horkheimer were positive about
Nominalism and the Enlightenment, but because it made the society superficial
and changes didn’t occur they became skeptic. Dialectic of Enlightenment was
the results of their skepticism.
I also learned that with ' losing the aura' Benjamin did not only mean
the uniqueness of a product, but also the accessibility of art. During the
discussion it became clear to me that he was talking about the fact that seeing
art used to be something that only privileged people could do, if you did not
have the money, you couldn't see it, but this has changed now. Because of
technology art can be seen everywhere and by everyone, you can find everything
on the Internet. Off course if you want to see the real 'De Nachtwacht', you
can't find this on Google, but you can find a picture of it and this erodes its
uniqueness and that is what Benjamin meant with 'Aura'. He also meant that
the aura that art had in the time that it was made and the aura that it has now
has also changed, as time passes a part of the aura got lost too, but that
doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an aura at all.
I understood the uniqueness and how the aura changes when time passes,
but I didn't make a link with the accessibility nowadays. I should have
reflected on that part too.
Good reflection! I can relate to your reflection about the aura. When I read Benjamin’s text I got the impression that he was against reconstructing art, for example by using a camera, because the aura was then lost. During the seminar I realized that he was not against it at all, in fact quite the opposite. He encouraged this new way of experience art, since it allowed everyone to experience art and not just the rich people. The natural aura might be lost, but not the entire aura. The reconstruction just has a different one.
ReplyDeleteThank you for a well written post and interesting reflections. Seems like you learned a lot this week!
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your clarification of nominalism and categorizations. However, I think it would have been nice to add an example of such which relate to the context of Adorno and Horkheimer (and hence, explains why their text was written to begin with). The example of a table is vivid, but perhaps you could have added something about the racist categorizations of their time. The reason for this is that I think your comments on how A&H were critical towards nominalism because it lead to the creation of "a superficial society" might be misinterpreted without it!
Hola,
ReplyDeletei'm not sure that the example of the phone reflects perfectly what superstructure represents exactly, but it gives an idea at least ! Because I dont think the app affects the phone on any point over time. But as I said, it gives an idea of the concept.
As a better example would be feminism. See that as a superstructures, their goal is that women have the same thing as the man. Not more, not less. This isn't in our (By that I mean the whole Population) mind yet, not implanted. therefore if you wanna change that way of thinking, you can't go directly and fight the idea by yourself saying that feminism is a good thing. No one could care less. Because you can't change the superstructure directly. So you have to go through the substructures first. In this case they would represent the idea we have of the difference between men and women. Through the movies, games, newspapers, primary socialisation, at school. And once we remove all the places where the cliches about men better than women exists, the overall population will start thinking differently. Through ;multiple generation however...
Wish you had talked more about your reflection on the aura it was interesting to read.
A great post, well written, easy to follow, and interesting to read! I think your thoughts on aura was interesting and quite similar to my own understanding of it. Today with all the fake copies, mass production, and everything moving so quickly, new things coming everyday, it's quite different from when art was less attainable and only for the rich. Today a lot of museums for example have free entry, making it even more accessible for the public!
ReplyDeleteJust because the aura changes, doesn't mean it's totally lost or worse. A copy might still have an aura, just not the same as the original, and the original still has an aura but it might not be the same today as it was when first created.
Thanks for some interesting and good reflections. Your post is well structured and easy to read.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if I grasp what you mean with the phone as substructure and apps as superstructure. Substructure is the economic foundation of society and superstructure are political, laws, religious and other intellectual institution. Superstructure changes more slowly (is more resistant to change) then substructure however when substructure change (eg. by new technology) the superstructure has to change eventually. Technology has the power to cause a change in superstructure. In the context I belie it’s relevant because Benjamin analyzed the consequences capital production had on art, capitalism was a transformation of superstructure that had caused a change in conditions of production. Therefor Benjamin related this concept to art.
Anyway good job with you reflections.
Hi,
ReplyDeletenicely written summary!
However, I think we understood the idea of superstructure and substructure differently. I believe the superstructure are the morals and value the society impose upon us, e.g. the idea of equality, feminism, human rights etc. Substructure on the other hand are the tools/technology we use to mediate the superstructure.
However, we seem to agree on the idea of the aura in art. There seems to be a causation relationship between aura and accessibility - you can't have them both. I do believe that in today's society, we prioritise accessibility before aura as a means of democracy - art is created in order to be experienced and appreciated, and it's not only "an elite" that should have the pleasure of it.
You manage to show your progress between the two posts excellently by clearly stating what you had misunderstood and how your thoughts improved. I can relate to your discussion about the 'aura', since I myself was also lacking the perspective of accessibility before the seminar. However, I also remember being a bit confused about Benjamin's thoughts about the aura being destroyed with the mechanical reproduction, because from where I stand, it doesn't make the original work of art any less significant. About this we had an interesting discussion during the lecture.
ReplyDeleteI was pleased to read your reflections on the matter and looking forward to the next ones! Thank you. :)