| Phi 220 Spring 2016 |
|
(Site navigation is not working.) |
Walter Benjamin (1992–1940) wrote about culture broadly, though his focus was literature. We will be discussing portions of one of his later works, published in 1936. On the sections I’ve assigned, §XII is the key; §§I–V provide background for it, and §§XIV-XV and the epilogue carry its ideas further (§XV is the most important of these).
• Benjamin begins with a tension between mechanical reproduction of art and an “aura” associated with uniqueness. By §V, this develops into a distinction between “exhibition value” and “cult value.” The former can be associated with the idea developed toward the end of §III of a desire “to bring things ‘closer’ spatially and humanly” and “to get hold of an object at very close range.” In a note to §IV (not included in the online version), Benjamin gives a corresponding characterization of cult value:
The defintion of the aura as the “unique phenomenon of a distance however close it may be” represents nothing but the formulation of the cult value of the work of art in categories of space and time perception. Distance is the opposite of closeness. The essentially distant object is the unapproachable one. Unapproachability is indeed a major quality of the cult image. True to its nature, it remains “distant, however close it may be.” The closeness which one may gain from its subject matter does not impair the distance which it retains in its appearance.
• As you read the beginning of §XII, think of Greenberg’s example of a Russian peasant’s reaction to works by Picasso and Repin. The reason for the difference in reactions to painting and film is filled out in the second paragraph in the contrast between a direct confrontation “by the masses” with a “graduated and hierarchized” mediation. Notice Benjamin’s positive view of directness in contrast to Greenberg’s association of immediacy with kitsch.
Benjamin and Greenberg had no opportunity to discuss the issue, but the philosopher Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), a friend of Benjamin, saw popular music in much the way Greenberg saw kitsch and wrote to Benjamin in response to this article, saying, “the idea that a reactionary is turned into a member of the avant-garde by expert knowledge of Chaplin’s films strikes me as out-and-out romanticization” (letter of March 18, 1936).
• Sections XIV and XV introduce a new (but related) contrast, between “contemplation” and “distraction.” Notice Benjamin’s association of the latter with Dada and the value he sees in it. (George Duhamel, 1884-1966, who is quoted in these sections, was a major literary figrue in France, both as an author and as a publisher. The work being quoted is a description of travels in the United States.)
• Benjamin’s epilogue is worth comparing with Greenberg’s discussion of the attitude towards art of totalitarian regimes. Benjamin quotes Filippo Marinetti (1875–1944), who was the founder of “Futurism,” one of the modernist artistic movements that grew up just before WWI. Futurists praised not only violence but also speed and industrial technology generally. Compare what Benjamin says here to Greenberg’s discussion, near the end of his essay, of Mussolini’s changing attitude toward Futurism.