Page 30 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 30
from walter benjamin to the end of cinema
was confined to fragments and more or less unfinished short essays, quite
often, as already mentioned above, it treated rather disparate (and desper-
ate) subjects. However, especially the Work of Art... – along with some oth-
er probes in the same direction – opened some questions, which continue
to bother us long time after the author’s unfortunate death.
The Mystery of Non-mystery
The manner, in which the set of questions we have in mind was put for-
ward in the Work of Art..., is somewhat schematic, but that is precisely the
form of theoretical problems, which most often proves to be very produc-
tive for further development.3 The “mystery” of the effectiveness of such
a type of discourse is not its depth, much less anything “hidden behind”
its obvious meaning. Of course, what could be the “depth” of a “schemat-
ic” text, and how could anything be “hidden” under the surface of writ-
ten words and sentences? Therefore, the “mystery” must be elsewhere. To
put it simply: the mystery is that there is no mystery, the genius lies pre-
cisely in provoking a deja vu effect in the reader. Yes, everybody sees that
the print, photography, cinema and so-forth are the result of an intellectu-
al (or the aesthetic) endeavour, but at the same time they are the products
of machinery, the products of the process of mechanical reproduction, and
everybody feels that the possibility to bring close to public many works of
art from secluded places, means a change in a way. But in what way? This
is the question, which not “just anybody” could feel important to answer.
Copies of the portrait of Mona Lisa4 suddenly became accessible and could
decorate a wall in any home, no matter how humble, great novels of French
realism are accessible in cheap editions, etc., so what? This is the point,
where Benjamin‘s intervention proved to be fruitful. Simple as his discov-
3 The same may be said, for example, about Althusser‘s concept of the “ideological
apparatuses of the state,” which caused a lot of controversy in the philosophical and
political debate in the 1970s, but it has been also repudiated many times over on the
ground of its “schematicism”. However, it looks as though, especially those among
Althusser’s critics, who tried to eradicate the concept itself, its life was prolonged by
causing many Althusser advocating answers. Very often they admitted that a dose of
schematicism is obvious in the Althusser’s theory, but this cannot belittle the fact of
“genius” of the scheme.
4 Mona Lisa happens to be the case, which was used for opposing points: “For Adorno,
the fact that we might be happy to pin a postcard of the Mona Lisa to our wall only
goes to show what the culture industry has done to us. It has reduced us to such a
level that we are happy to be fobbed off with cheap copies; we feel absolutely no need
to see the original because we think that it has nothing to say to us” (Tester, 1994: p.
49).
28
was confined to fragments and more or less unfinished short essays, quite
often, as already mentioned above, it treated rather disparate (and desper-
ate) subjects. However, especially the Work of Art... – along with some oth-
er probes in the same direction – opened some questions, which continue
to bother us long time after the author’s unfortunate death.
The Mystery of Non-mystery
The manner, in which the set of questions we have in mind was put for-
ward in the Work of Art..., is somewhat schematic, but that is precisely the
form of theoretical problems, which most often proves to be very produc-
tive for further development.3 The “mystery” of the effectiveness of such
a type of discourse is not its depth, much less anything “hidden behind”
its obvious meaning. Of course, what could be the “depth” of a “schemat-
ic” text, and how could anything be “hidden” under the surface of writ-
ten words and sentences? Therefore, the “mystery” must be elsewhere. To
put it simply: the mystery is that there is no mystery, the genius lies pre-
cisely in provoking a deja vu effect in the reader. Yes, everybody sees that
the print, photography, cinema and so-forth are the result of an intellectu-
al (or the aesthetic) endeavour, but at the same time they are the products
of machinery, the products of the process of mechanical reproduction, and
everybody feels that the possibility to bring close to public many works of
art from secluded places, means a change in a way. But in what way? This
is the question, which not “just anybody” could feel important to answer.
Copies of the portrait of Mona Lisa4 suddenly became accessible and could
decorate a wall in any home, no matter how humble, great novels of French
realism are accessible in cheap editions, etc., so what? This is the point,
where Benjamin‘s intervention proved to be fruitful. Simple as his discov-
3 The same may be said, for example, about Althusser‘s concept of the “ideological
apparatuses of the state,” which caused a lot of controversy in the philosophical and
political debate in the 1970s, but it has been also repudiated many times over on the
ground of its “schematicism”. However, it looks as though, especially those among
Althusser’s critics, who tried to eradicate the concept itself, its life was prolonged by
causing many Althusser advocating answers. Very often they admitted that a dose of
schematicism is obvious in the Althusser’s theory, but this cannot belittle the fact of
“genius” of the scheme.
4 Mona Lisa happens to be the case, which was used for opposing points: “For Adorno,
the fact that we might be happy to pin a postcard of the Mona Lisa to our wall only
goes to show what the culture industry has done to us. It has reduced us to such a
level that we are happy to be fobbed off with cheap copies; we feel absolutely no need
to see the original because we think that it has nothing to say to us” (Tester, 1994: p.
49).
28
