
Presenters post responses the rest of the class posts one question (or more) each for class discussion.
* * *
Although finding the introduction to Kittler’s book Gramophone, Film, Typewriter to be a bit of a rant, I was able to surmise that Kittler had two main topics of discussion in his introduction. The first shows the evolution of media and its three components: image, sound and text. The other is the earlier use of these three media components in history, some uses being more absurd then others.
Throughout the entire introduction I found one reoccurring theme to be interesting and comical. This theme is the idea that the advancement of media will be humanities undoing. Kittler discusses two instances where man is set back by the evolution of media. He states that the enhancement of storage media will be the end of the minds ability and desire to retain knowledge. Speaking for myself, I find it easier to retain and expand upon a larger vocabulary then continually look up words on an online dictionary. The other instance is the typewriter's unavoidable ability to ruin the artistic value of a piece of writing. Haven’t all of us been moved by a piece that was written after the typewriters creation?
The finial section of Kettler’s introduction that I find amusing is the quote from Nietzsche. Nietzsche states, “Are these (typewriters) humans or perhaps only thinking, writing, and speaking machines?” To answer this question we must first figure out what a machine is? Merriam-Webster defines a machine as, “an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner.” Humans fit that description. From a very base standpoint, a typewriter can be mistaken for a human. We are both machines that respond to input and subsequently create an output. However, that alone does not mean we are equal to a typewriter. Kittler makes a point at the end of the introduction that a computer, the offspring of a typewriter, will never be able to do what a human can do.
Elan Jurado
*
Question about Walter Benjamin
What is the influence of the "Mechanical Reproduction" on the art?
JooYoung Bae
*
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin is a dated essay. He is writing this essay from a much earlier point of view and comparing everything to everything. The man cannot stop spewing out analogies in this essay, he’s writing this as if it were really important and he really needs to drive some arguments home, but at the same time because he goes into such detail with his arguments, I can’t get the big picture. The essay is about more than what the title alludes.
Art in the age of reproduction means more people are exposed to art; more people are familiar with art. Art is more accessible and more people have the ability to study art and for art to inspire them or for art to allow them to escape their daily lives. The reproduction of art also means there is no longer an art capitol of the world. You don’t need to be in a certain locale to learn a specific type of art because everything is more convenient and more easily transmittable.
I think even though Benjamin put in every possible argument and its reasoning and its other possibilities and a lot of analogies, there might have been a few contradicting possibilities he didn’t come up with and granted this may be because of his time period and the conception of one man.
One man who believed in balance and happy little trees whose work and lifestyle contradicted Benjamin’s arguments, that man’s name was Bob Ross.
Bob Ross is a painter in front of a live audience being filmed. Ross’s works contradict because they would be authentic and have authority and have a place in time and history, yet at the same time because the image of his painting is being viewed by the masses it has the potential to become exploitable. His painting would also have aura, yet be detached, so maybe the aura is balanced? Ross as an actor is both a stage actor presenting his artistic performance directly to a live audience and a film actor represented to the camera in a certain way and lacking aura. He is an illusion and an escape from reality, yet has a real life pace his audience can see everything. He’s almost perfectly balanced and a good contradiction for Benjamin’s arguments because he is a traditional happy little tree painter that has little impact.
Brenda Bramel
What is substructure?
A.
*