The Critical media studies texts were put into historical context where it was described how capitalism, communism, futurism and fascism influenced the writers in different ways. Some key concepts were clarified.
Myth was described as strategy to erase the unknown; through mimesis process (imitation) get into nature to change it. Enlightenment observes regularity (where human intervention is impossible) to de-mystify the world. Realism argues that the truth is found in abstract ideas, Nominalism a particular object. Empiricism means that our world is the creation of our mind, whilst Rationalism argues thinking as reproducing existing results therefore deems it unnecessary - correlating it with the mimesis process. Most of these overlap with my previous impression, but the chronological order and correlation of mimesis was new to me.
Benjamin, as a Marxist Jew before and during the second world war, balanced dialectical concepts to find the golden middle ground of questioning art reproduction, as well as its revolutionary potential in what was not said, similar to “Lost in translation”. The fact that Benjamin promoted thinking between the lines would argue he was more of an empiricist than a rationalist. More importantly, Fascism was also criticized before the second world war took off.
Friends of Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer, emigrated to the U.S. Overwhelmed by its commercialism despite enlightenment, they questioned capitalism but also enlightenment itself and its role in society. Art was central in this discussion about potential societal change. In the same way Youtube predicts what you want to watch based on regularity, which caps your mind into a limited framework, Adorno and Horkheimer meant that observing regularity creates conformity and passivity. Enlightenment lacked the gap between the existing and the possible, promoting Realism before Nominalism.
Moving onto Futurism, reconnecting what Adorno and Horkheimer said about technology being the essence of enlightenment, one could argue there was an overlap with their line of thought and Marinetti, whom also mentions technology as central in his manifesto. In contrast to Marinetti, who foremost argued for technological advances, knowledge and the mind of people, Mussolini and Hitler understood (partly thanks to Freud) that convincing also needs to speak to people’s hearts. Rhetoric got an upswing.
Referring back to my initial thoughts on Critical media studies, I presented Dadaism as an example to explain the concept “Aura” in context of Benjamin, but since then we have also learned about how Cubism had an important role in deconstructing and reproducing objects (and people). This was also connected to Futurism, where tradition was removed and the new was established.
An interesting discussion point to expand on would be the potential connection between the economy, immigration and increased fascism.
Hi,
ReplyDeletethanks for the historical insight into the terms, especially for the Occam's razor from the previous blog post, that was interesting to know that the idea of simplification of explanations existed in XIII-XIV centuries. I also liked the way you supplement philosophical concepts with the examples (e.g. the book about Dutch or principles of Swedish Spotify). Carry on :)
Hola,
ReplyDeleteYou brought some appealing informations about history and the context in which they write in.
I have difficult time to grasp the relation between :Marinetti: and the essence of enlightenment you seem to talk about. The aura Benjamin talks about isn't only about destruction. He adhere to the fact that on one side this is a bad thing that it is destroyed, because losing of his uniqueness and what makes the product what it is. But on the other side the open door to everyone looking to expand their vision of art, or just to enter in a new world they were never supposed to.
Overall, good reflections !
Hi! I really think that putting both of these texts to the historical background complements an understanding of authors' ideas. For me also myth an enlightenment connection to mimesis was new, but it really explains the whole concept. However, I am not sure if you grasped the idea that myth and enlightenment after all both represents Mimesis (imitation of the world), even if enlightenment's purpose was to de-mystify the wold by thinking, that thinking just reproduces the world. If I think I just repeat what is already known. In this way we are in a closed circle, our society is trapped in a mythology. I personally did not connect Marinetti thoughts with Benjamin, however, it is really interesting. Benjamin believed by reproducing we can shape society and bring down a class of bourgeois thus, it reflects to dadaism movement ideas. Thank you for great insights.
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteYour blog post is well written. I appreciate how you put everything in a historical context; it helps to understand their philosophical thoughts better. I also think I grasp most of the concepts from reading the texts however correlation of mimesis was new to me as well, as you wrote myth it's a way to get into nature and change things through mimesis process. Human just tend to reproduce, which also leads to passivity. Myth is not about God, it is a strategy of, of rising the unknown, it’s a mechanism how we control the unknown. Enlightenment wanted to control the unknown and started out with something good, but it ended up as use for fascism.
I think your last point about considering the relationship between the economy, immigration and fascism is intriguing. Fascism is gaining influence as people are coming to blame foreign influence for negatively impacting culture and economy. Like enlightenment gave way to new technologies that gave way for fascism to gain political power in the 20th century, I wonder today if social media platforms are also persuading more people today to join in their ideals. I think this is an example of mimesis. As you mentioned, mimesis is imitation. I believe this imitation is what we are seeing in neo-fascism today.
ReplyDeleteYou've written a very well written and interesting post to read, good job! I think what you wrote about observing regularity creating conformity and passivity, and your parallel to YouTube and how it predicts what you want to watch. This is something I've thought quite a lot about, how our minds becomes limited to a framework, to a specific setting. Let's take Facebook as an example, most of your friends are most likely similar to you, and might share articles etc that coincides with your opinions, maybe you even delete or block people how's views are opposite yours. That creates a circle of all news (for example) only being the once you want to read. How will that effect they way we view the world?
ReplyDelete