Theme 2: Critical media studies

Dialectic of enlightenment

1) Horkheimer and Adorno writes in the first sentence of the chapter that the concept enlightenment in its widest sense is to be understood as the advancement of thought. Enlightenment aims at dissolving the world of myths and magic and favors objective knowledge that can be measured and empirically proven. The aim is to relief man from fear, by creating an empirical and positivist understanding of the world. This is done by demythologising and disenchanting myths. For example, if using Kant’s example of a blooming tree, in a mythical sense people might have perceived the blooming as a sign from the spirits. But, through demythologising it, by giving no space for the unknown, we explain this through photosynthesis, thus explaining the phenomena in an empirically scientific manner.

2) Dialectic is the name of a process, where two different views on a subject matter are discussed through sets of rational arguments. The aim is to establish a truth. One could say that the discussion between Socrates and Theaetetus is of dialectic nature.

3) Horkheimer and Adorno are influenced by Marx. Nominalism is a philosophical concept that argues that universal and/or abstract objects do not exist. This means that objects should not be grouped but looked at with an individualistic approach. With a nominal viewpoint, it is difficult to work for a societal structure with a focus on the collective.

4) In a meta perspective myths are enlightenment, because without myths there would be no enlightenment. Mythical understanding in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument is further explained in answer one, above.

The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity 

1)

• The substructure consists of the the means and relations of production. 
• The superstructure consists of everything in society that is not directly connected to production, such as the political, social and juridical institutions as well as more abstract concepts of norms and culture. 
 

My interpretation is that the relation between the super- and the substructure is a reciprocal process. If a change occurs in the substructure, such as the invention and spread of the printing press, it will have implications for the superstructure, such as easier accessible books, resulting in widespread societal changes, such as the reformation. However, Benjamin argues that it will take longer for these changes to be manifested than if a change in the substructure would occur, such as in the case of a war. This could be due to the capitalistic nature of the substructure. In order to be profitable, one most adapt to the market. From a Marxist perspective mechanical reproduction enables a greater mass to take part of culture, however, it is still the bourgeoisie that controls production, meaning that the ruling class also controls society.

2) According to Benjamin, culture has revolutionary potential. In the preface it is evident that it is useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art. One of the democratic potentials he mentions is the increased numbers of readers becoming writers, hence having the opportunity to express their thoughts to a great mass. Adorno and Horkheimer have a different perspective, where the emerging mechanical culture industry has weakened the capacity of the individual to revolt.

 3) Benjamin proposes that historical conditions affects how we perceive the world through our senses. We perceive a painting differently to a film. Because of the dynamic element of the film, we have to adapt our perception from contemplation to a more active form of media usage. History affects how we perceive through our senses. The American sociologist, Becker later argues that how we interpret a photograph is dependent on our prior knowledge about the object. Hence, as the world changes, our perception of the world changes. If we see a reproduction it is put in a context of social construction.

4) Benjamin defines the aura of natural objects as the unique phenomenon of a distance. When talking about the aura of art objects, Benjamin raises the importance of the objects presence in time and space, which can not be reproduced. Mechanical reproduced art objects, will loose its aura, as it looses it historical context as well as its authenticity. Benjamin writes that techniques of reproduction increases the possibilities of hosting exhibitions. But, when an artwork is represented at an exhibition, there is a risk that the authenticity of the artwork is decreased as a result of it not being presented in its original context. Benjamin’s text also made me wonder whether a natural object can loose its aura? If for example a shell is taken away from its original context (the beach), it no longer appears as nice. Could it be due to lack of aura?