Page 124 - Darko Štrajn, Umetnost v realnosti, Dissertationes 18
P. 124
Umetnost v realnosti
cidate that the above mentioned Benjamin’s essay represents an episte-
mological breakthrough within the context of his writing and outside
this of context too. There was a change in the aesthetic perception of art
in the 1960s and 1970s. That was the time, when so called modernity
reached its peak, and when it became possible to articulate very trans-
parently that many barriers between “fine” and commercial art had fall-
en. Although the first such theoretical perceptions had been formu-
lated and elaborated much earlier (most outstandingly by Walter Ben-
jamin and later on, among others, by Jean Francois Lyotard) it can be ar-
gued, that before the mentioned period the theory of mass culture had
not any decisive impact on the artistic production and vice versa. Enter-
ing the mass perception, the new forms of aesthetic praxis overturned
whole functioning of the arts in the social imaginary. Although dis-
cussing the problems of the form of aesthetic objects (products of “tech-
nological” arts included) may still be a “noble” task of aesthetic theo-
ry, there is no doubt that artistic production interferes into the repro-
duction of the society in much more decisive way than anybody ever
had dreamt before. However, the complex meaning of this transforma-
tion, which is inscribed into the sociological notion of “reflexive socie-
ty,” is still open for exploration. Reconsiderations of relations between
aesthetic and artistic praxis and social changes from the viewpoint of
hegemony in its intellectual and political significations, enable decon-
structive insights in the modernity’s achievements such as, for example,
Antonioni’s films, Warhol’s ‘statements,’ or fashion styles.
The understanding of intellectual habitus can be expressed only re-
flexively. It is necessarily caught in the coordinates of memory in a rela-
tion to a historical disposition. It is – if we are not about to tell every-
thing at once – pronounceable in the grammars of individual. All this is
manifested in Benjamin’s attempts to think urbanity over in his relative-
ly ordered essays about Baudelaire, as well as in his muddled and prob-
ably for ever semiotically open “Arcades.” Why are urbanity and intel-
lectuality bound together as agencies in human community? Reflexivity
isn’t just a concept since it is marking the expansion of industrial world
and social organisation, which exempts an individual from tradition –
also by educating and “cultivating” him/her. Tremendously unique Ben-
jamin’s texts describe urban spaces, as well as mass perception of archi-
tecture, and they decipher urbanity through poetry. Benjamin succeed-
ed in his endeavour above all because his texts speak the language of ur-
banity. Simultaneously, we could not ascribe to Benjamin that he was
idealising urbanity, or, considering his appropriation of Baudelaire’s po-
cidate that the above mentioned Benjamin’s essay represents an episte-
mological breakthrough within the context of his writing and outside
this of context too. There was a change in the aesthetic perception of art
in the 1960s and 1970s. That was the time, when so called modernity
reached its peak, and when it became possible to articulate very trans-
parently that many barriers between “fine” and commercial art had fall-
en. Although the first such theoretical perceptions had been formu-
lated and elaborated much earlier (most outstandingly by Walter Ben-
jamin and later on, among others, by Jean Francois Lyotard) it can be ar-
gued, that before the mentioned period the theory of mass culture had
not any decisive impact on the artistic production and vice versa. Enter-
ing the mass perception, the new forms of aesthetic praxis overturned
whole functioning of the arts in the social imaginary. Although dis-
cussing the problems of the form of aesthetic objects (products of “tech-
nological” arts included) may still be a “noble” task of aesthetic theo-
ry, there is no doubt that artistic production interferes into the repro-
duction of the society in much more decisive way than anybody ever
had dreamt before. However, the complex meaning of this transforma-
tion, which is inscribed into the sociological notion of “reflexive socie-
ty,” is still open for exploration. Reconsiderations of relations between
aesthetic and artistic praxis and social changes from the viewpoint of
hegemony in its intellectual and political significations, enable decon-
structive insights in the modernity’s achievements such as, for example,
Antonioni’s films, Warhol’s ‘statements,’ or fashion styles.
The understanding of intellectual habitus can be expressed only re-
flexively. It is necessarily caught in the coordinates of memory in a rela-
tion to a historical disposition. It is – if we are not about to tell every-
thing at once – pronounceable in the grammars of individual. All this is
manifested in Benjamin’s attempts to think urbanity over in his relative-
ly ordered essays about Baudelaire, as well as in his muddled and prob-
ably for ever semiotically open “Arcades.” Why are urbanity and intel-
lectuality bound together as agencies in human community? Reflexivity
isn’t just a concept since it is marking the expansion of industrial world
and social organisation, which exempts an individual from tradition –
also by educating and “cultivating” him/her. Tremendously unique Ben-
jamin’s texts describe urban spaces, as well as mass perception of archi-
tecture, and they decipher urbanity through poetry. Benjamin succeed-
ed in his endeavour above all because his texts speak the language of ur-
banity. Simultaneously, we could not ascribe to Benjamin that he was
idealising urbanity, or, considering his appropriation of Baudelaire’s po-
