Page 42 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 42
from walter benjamin to the end of cinema
of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the ex-
pert. Such fusion is of great social significance (Ibid.: p. 234).
The semantic field, which is formed by the notion of “social signifi-
cance” is a vast area, and cannot be easily described. The place of a certain
degree of general literacy in Benjamin‘s times is nowadays taken up by a
comparatively high degree of general education, no matter whether this ed-
ucation is formal or informal. Reproduced aesthetic features have become
attributes of daily life. The notion of “fine art” therefore lost its full mean-
ing; it became mainly an expression of a certain view not so much upon art,
but upon society. As the model of competitive economy in the prosperous
Western world (which now culturally includes most of the former socialist
world) continues to (re)produce class differences, the mass culture makes
symbolic repressions and expressions of them much more a matter of so-
cial play, or as we could put it with David Chaney (1993), a matter of “pub-
lic drama«.
The Politics of Differences
There are no indications that Benjamin and Gramsci were very much
aware of each other’s existence, yet some similar theoretical and politi-
cal motives in the writings of both are easily discernible. Gramsci writes
in his Quaderni del carcere about the “old intellectual and moral leaders,”
who are increasingly discovering that their “preachments are only preach-
ments”, which have nothing to do with reality, since “the special form of
civilization, culture, morality which they have represented is now dissipat-
ing” (Gramsci, 1974: p. 255). Such observations could easily be compared to
Benjamin’s criticism of Duhamel and of his views about film as a “diver-
sion for uneducated”. What Gramsci added to this non-existent dialogue is
the notion of hegemony, which acquires quite diverse meanings within his
work, but basically his use of the notion functions as an articulation of the
“fundamental displacements” (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: p. 67). Laclau and
Mouffe outlined the meaning of the notion, which originates in the Russian
social democracy: “/…/ it became necessary to characterize the new type
of relationship between the working class and the alien tasks it had to as-
sume at a given moment. This anomalous relation was called ‘hegemony’”
(p. 50). Gramsci’s displacements, which include the concept of the “mate-
riality of ideology,” which “takes us away from the old base/superstructure
distinction”, finally result in the concept of “political subjects”. For Gram-
sci they are “not – strictly speaking – classes, but complex ‘collective wills’;
40
of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the ex-
pert. Such fusion is of great social significance (Ibid.: p. 234).
The semantic field, which is formed by the notion of “social signifi-
cance” is a vast area, and cannot be easily described. The place of a certain
degree of general literacy in Benjamin‘s times is nowadays taken up by a
comparatively high degree of general education, no matter whether this ed-
ucation is formal or informal. Reproduced aesthetic features have become
attributes of daily life. The notion of “fine art” therefore lost its full mean-
ing; it became mainly an expression of a certain view not so much upon art,
but upon society. As the model of competitive economy in the prosperous
Western world (which now culturally includes most of the former socialist
world) continues to (re)produce class differences, the mass culture makes
symbolic repressions and expressions of them much more a matter of so-
cial play, or as we could put it with David Chaney (1993), a matter of “pub-
lic drama«.
The Politics of Differences
There are no indications that Benjamin and Gramsci were very much
aware of each other’s existence, yet some similar theoretical and politi-
cal motives in the writings of both are easily discernible. Gramsci writes
in his Quaderni del carcere about the “old intellectual and moral leaders,”
who are increasingly discovering that their “preachments are only preach-
ments”, which have nothing to do with reality, since “the special form of
civilization, culture, morality which they have represented is now dissipat-
ing” (Gramsci, 1974: p. 255). Such observations could easily be compared to
Benjamin’s criticism of Duhamel and of his views about film as a “diver-
sion for uneducated”. What Gramsci added to this non-existent dialogue is
the notion of hegemony, which acquires quite diverse meanings within his
work, but basically his use of the notion functions as an articulation of the
“fundamental displacements” (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: p. 67). Laclau and
Mouffe outlined the meaning of the notion, which originates in the Russian
social democracy: “/…/ it became necessary to characterize the new type
of relationship between the working class and the alien tasks it had to as-
sume at a given moment. This anomalous relation was called ‘hegemony’”
(p. 50). Gramsci’s displacements, which include the concept of the “mate-
riality of ideology,” which “takes us away from the old base/superstructure
distinction”, finally result in the concept of “political subjects”. For Gram-
sci they are “not – strictly speaking – classes, but complex ‘collective wills’;
40
