Benjamin "The Work of Art..."

Here are some quotes that I thought were important to look at in the text:

“With the concept of "artistic volition," Riegl sought to show how art tracked major shifts in the structure and attitudes of collectives: societies, races, ethnic groups, and so on. Kunstwollen is the artistic projection of a collective intention.” (p. 10)

What I understand from this is that one of effective ways to study culture is to study its art because it the art you can see all the major changes or developments. However, I don’t fully grasp the meaning of the last sentence in the passage. What does the “collective intention” refer to exactly?

“Man is, however, not solely a being who takes in impressions through the senses -he is not only passive -but also a desiring- that is, an active -being, who will interpret the world as it reveals itself to his desire (which changes according to race, place, and time). " (p. 10)

What I understand from Benjamin’s theory is that the works of art are not merely a window to the culture at the period of time when they were created, but rather they could be eye openers to the culture in the present historical era and in understanding our culture today. The reason for this is that works of art “play an import role in shaping the human sensory capacity” (p. 10) because according to him our world can best be described with the term “phantasmagoria” which is the reason for which humans are unable to perceive and understand their own world.

I’m not sure if I have the right impression from this reading, but I got the sense that Benjamin has an appreciation for the traditional art which cannot be replicated like the current art (which can easily be replicated technologically) when he speaks of the authenticity. While at the same time showing the advantages of the art which is created with technology, because it can capture/have aspects which are not possible to attain with the traditional ways of creating art. “Technological reproduction can place the copy of the original in situations which the original itself cannot attain” (p. 21).

Did I get this right? I have to admit some parts of the reading were a bit confusing for me.

Pleasure, Reality or both? "Beyond the Pleasure Principle"

So far in the readings that we have done in this class this is one of the most interesting for me. The “pleasure principle” in itself, it’s relation to the “reality principal” and to the phenomena of repressed memory is absolutely fascinating for me.

Let me share more specific examples from the text. One of the points that caught my attention in part one of the text, where we have the idea that when one is powerless in a certain situation, in other words when one is passive, repeating the experience in a way that puts the person in an active position is in itself a source of pleasure. The author derives this idea from the child’s tendency to play the game of making his toys “gone” and then having them back, imitating the disappearance of his mother, over which he has no control, by throwing his toys away, going from passive to active. So despite the connection of this game with an unpleasant experience, being in control brings a sense of pleasure to the child. Those of us who are control freaks can relate I guess :)

Another passage that surprised me was where Freud suggests that sometimes children, who are to my understanding for him the representation of the adults, tend to repeat terrifying experiences to which they were subjected, as an operation or a visit to the doctor, but they change the situation around by becoming the perpetrator of the action, as if revenging themselves “on a substitute” (p. 170). This idea seemed sadistic to me, and I would like to believe that it is not true. I think we can say that the reason why a child might repeat such a game comes from the fascination that they have from the experience or because the experience left a strong impression on them. Also if what he is saying is true then the child who went to the doctor or had an operation should always be the “doctor” in the game and should not accept to be the “sick” person. Usually children take turns so I don’t think that’s the case. I just can’t really agree completely on his suggestion that they are trying to take revenge on a substitute.

When speaking about the “compulsion to repeat” the author states that “there really does exist in the mind a compulsion to repeat which overrides the pleasure principle” (p. 173). This statement can be puzzling, because why would one want to repeat an experience that brings them suffering and which is unpleasant? However, at the same time it makes sense because often there is a need for repetition or remembrance in order to get over the unpleasant experience. This is where the “reality principle” is stronger that the “pleasure principle”. We can also conclude, from this text that compulsion to repeat does not necessarily go against the “pleasure principle” because it is something that people sometimes enjoy. I’m not sure if this part is clear enough, in my head it makes sense but it’s a bit hard to explain. Feel free to ask what I’m trying to say if you find it confusing.