Dialectic of Enlightenment by Adorno and Horkheimer is to be understood as a critical analysis of enlightenment. The concept of enlightenment has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Enlightenment’s program was the disenchantment of the world by replacing the magic with rational knowledge. Adorno and Horkheimer think the wish of gaining knowledge and understanding the world is grounded on the evil ambition to dominate [nature] and human beings. They view technology as a key to power. And this power will be abused. Adorno and Horkheimer only see a power to change the world into something worse and neglect the possibility that knowledge could enrich the world.
Furthermore, they criticize nominalism by calling it the prototype of bourgeois thinking. A characteristic of a nominalistic position is that universals (abstract terms) are negated and only assumptions of individual non-metaphysical objects are seen as true.
Enlightenment, as Adorno and Horkheimer see it, has its origin in myth. Myth, like knowledge, was used by human beings to explain the world. The unknown, which cannot be explained, arises fear and fear keeps people under control. But with understanding comes the feeling of superiority and with it the striving for power. So both knowledge and myth can be seen as tools to overpower the nature. Since enlightenment tries to give explanations for the same concepts which were covered by myth, it can be said that enlightenment developed from myth.
The essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Benjamin Walter discusses the progress of culture and its influence on the authenticity of art.
In the beginning of his essay Walter introduces the terms of superstructure and substructure. A Marxist refers to the economy, the base of the society, as a substructure and refers to the subculture as the social or political structure resulted from the substructure. As the terms already indicate, the superstructure is build upon the substructure. So as a logical consequence, the superstructure can only develop more slowly than the substructure as it is based on and developed from it.
According to Walter, revolutionary potential can be found in culture. The culture people experience influences their way of perceiving. A culture in which people can easily be reached by mass-media is a dangerous one. As people’s perception is formed by experiences, the cultural influence should not be underestimated. It can be said that Walter is giving a warning about the potential influence the culture bears and that this potential can be abused to control people. But he does not characterize the nature of cultural progress as evil as Adorno and Horkheimer do. They identify the culture as weapon which not only CAN but WILL be used against nature and people. In contrast to this Walter only appeals that this weapon should be used carefully and that people have to be aware of its power.
Walter believes that human perception is determined by historical circumstances. Perception can therefore never be optimal in terms of objectiveness since there are certain prerequisites which influence the interpretation of perceived information. Walter gives an example of the scholars of the Viennese school, Riegl and Wickhoff, which were unter the influence of the late Roman times and therefore could make conclusions about changes in perception but where not able to connect them to social transformations.
The aura of an object describes the authenticity of this object, its uniqueness and thereby also its value. Walter says that the aura of early photographs in the fleeting expression of a human face is established by their melancholy, incomparable beauty. But according to Walter the aura can be stripped of an art object by the mechanical reproduction. The reason for this is that he believes the term of art implies uniqueness, in other words that an object can not be art if it can be reproduced. The reproducibility causes a loss of distance between the observer and the object since the object degenerates to something common and becomes unconditionally available. Whereas we can easily reproduce things which were made by human beings, nature is something which we cannot reproduced. Therefore the aura of a natural object will stay untouched.
I think that Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s perspective of knowledge and culture is too drastic and one-sided. Something that bears power can always be used for god and evil purposes. Nevertheless it is important to be aware of its possible influence and power. Therefore I agree with Walter’s point of view. I also believe that he is correct in saying that reproducibility can diminish the value of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment