Theme 2 - Media studies that are critical, in order to study media critically

Question 1

The idea behind Enlightenment (often referred to as an era in human history) is to seek knowledge about everything in all its various forms. The mankind is supposed to cast of all mind-clouding garments of superstition and handle the world through the capabilities of the human mind.

The incentive was to use reasoning, analytics, and the power of observation to deduce the way the world works.

Question 2

- Dialectics is a method of argumentation, a tool if you like, which has been used since the mid-antiquity in order to resolve disputes or settle disagreements. The goal is reach the truth in all things, usually within, or in between, one or more points of view originating from the participants in question. This goal in turn, is achieved by using reason, and to an extension rational thought, to define concepts in their most basic form.

Question 3

- Nominalism, as opposed to realism, is the concept that universals (standing over particulars) does not exist in our world. In other words that universal concepts such as green, or fluffy, are not actually existing in our reality, rather the objects claiming these properties are instances of various universal concepts residing within each such object.

Nominalism, for Adorno and Horkheimer, is an important concept because of it's relation to culture and facism.

Question 4

- According to Adorno and Horkheimer, the whole era of enlightenment laboured to dispel myths, i.e. "disenchanting the world". By gaining knowledge of how said world, and all its sub-parts, function, man would be able to erase all "knowledge" that was not based on "truth".

So in their argument, myth is the umbrella term for all truths that are either not falsifiable or not rational.  

To technically reproduce art, in the age of Work

Question 1

The TL:DR-version of the first question is: 

Unless you are into ideology, they are meaningless concepts since there really is no point in analysing cultural production from a Marxist perspective.

The more in depth, and some might argue fair, answer is that superstructures are the means from which society is shaped overall. Good examples are ideologies, values, norms or similar general spheres of abstract influence. Whilst substructures, as the name implies, revolve around the various relations within each superstructure, usually in more concrete of a form. Marx himself would have used a classical example such as "workers versus the owners of the means of production".

Substructures are in constant flux, whilst superstructures generally takes a lot longer to develop and settle. 

Question 2

Absolutely, one can almost sense an underlying tone in that very regard. Art, and especially the technical art of film, is a superb instrument to change society. With the help of that particular medium, albeit disguised as a work of art, a population can be shown the error of their ways and changed because of it. 

To quote Benjamin on this matter:

"We do not deny that in some cases today's films can also promote revolutionary criticism of social conditions, even of the distribution of property"

Although he does go on about how art in general inherit this property, and that film is nothing he is specifically concerned about in his study,  I think it is quite clear that films to him does not reach the same uniqueness of classical art, while he does admit the fact that movie-companies do set the form and fashion for their specific message.

Benjamin argues that culture has a revolutionary potential in the sense that it can show us alternatives to our current state of affairs. For instance, the films referred to above could be used to show a story were people are more equal, and in what way that makes the happier.

In any case, I do not fully agree with him on this subject, as I feel he reads to much into the cult of a persona, fostered by large corporations.

Question 3

This one of the few points where I seem to really agree with Benjamin. I believe that the way we perceive the world is very much influenced by our historical context, or rather the way we perceive history, as well as the natural state of things. I can look at a rock, state its colour and general appearance, but then remember how the  previous ice-age supposedly shaped this particular rock and thus see it from another perspective.

Question 4

The easy, and short, answer is: Yes, no, or maybe. The "aura" of a natural object is perceived differently than the equivalent of art. In this sense, they are not inherent within the same realm of perception. They do however, invoke the same sensation, which is why the same name, or concept, is used for the two. In this sense, of course they are similar. I think the conclusion is that the “aura” of an object lies within the apprehension of the perceiver.


Would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up an went mad now?