Theme 2: Critical media studies

1.

a)    What is "Enlightenment"?

I interpret Adorno and Horkheimer's way of describing enlightenment as a disenchanting and demythologizing of the world by translating life into math and physical laws. Knowledge gave people an escape route from blind belief to insight.

b)    What is "dialectic"?

It is a way of investigating what is the most truthful of different opinions; discussing in a sophisticated way and listening to all facts and opinions. To know what is true, you must know what is not true.

c)    What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism is a doctrine that says that all particular objects exist, but universals or general ideas are just names without actual meaning. This is important because it is similar to the mindset of enlightenment; knowledge is the nucleus and all other things is just made up and therefore do not exist.

d)    What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Myths are untruth explanations of unknown phenomena’s made up by humans because of the fear of not knowing (even if it is a lie, it is better than nothing). The function of myths in this text is to highlight the problem of not having enough knowledge.

2.

a)    In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

Substructure contains the means of production, e.g. machines, tools and raw material. In this context I think it is the e.g. paintings, movies, pencils and artists. Superstructure is everything that the substructure is not, things not directly connected to the production. For example laws, religion and politics. In this context I think it is the work of art itself.

The point of analyzing cultural production from this perspective is primarily to get a grasp of in what direction culture is developing. Substructure shapes superstructure. If the substructure changes, it will affect the superstructure. Changes in the substructure are fast meanwhile changes in the superstructure are very slow.

b)    Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

Yes, Benjamin argues that the culture indeed have revolutionary potentials. A paintings purpose is not to be spread worldwide via newspapers or television shows. Movie and photography, on the other hand, made it easier to convey a specific message to a large crowd. Movie and photography are very persuasive art forms and if you are able to easily spread them to a large amount of people, you sure have big influence.

Adorno & Horkheimer believes that knowledge is great and the evolution of culture has led to easier spreading of knowledge, which is something they like. On the contrary, Benjamin doesn’t fully embrace the evolution of the culture mainly because of the risk for reproduction and forgery.

c)    Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

I think Benjamin means that naturally determined perception is when people perceive things using their own experiences and feelings. This may vary between different people and therefore the same thing can be perceived in different ways. By historically determined perception I believe it is when people’s perception is influenced by historical events and the fact that culture evolves and is not the same as it was yesterday. One example from Benjamin’s text is the decline of the Roman Empire which led to great shifts of population and also different art and a new kind of perception.

d)    What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

A person’s aura is their charisma, an invisible attribute that is hard to explain. Aura is something you can’t measure. An object can also have an aura. Benjamin defines it as a “unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be”. Benjamin also argues that a reproduction of a painting, perfectly painted, still misses something; the presence of space and time. A reproduction doesn’t have an aura. The difference between natural objects and art objects is that natural objects are all unique and therefore have an aura meanwhile art objects can be reproduced and therefore doesn’t have an aura.