Page 92 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 92
from walter benjamin to the end of cinema
est shadow,” art leaves behind the neutral horizon of the aesthetic
and recognizes itself in the “golden ball” of the will to power (Ag-
amben, 1999: p. 2).
This is, of course, one of the possible articulations marking a basic shift
in the very position of art at the time, which followed many social, politi-
cal and spiritual turbulences of the 19th Century. In a way, it is also explain-
ing how it had become possible to talk about the rules of art, as in the case
of Bourdieu. This turn from the spectator to a creator could not ultimately
succeed in its unilateral sense. Even l’art pour l’art mostly reflected more a
hopelessness of its “project” than any serious ambition. However, what was
left of it has been an idea that a work of art might and can contain a state-
ment, or that it even could be above all a statement – no matter how ap-
palled any advocate of the original meaning of the concept would be. Such
ponderings played very visible role in the mid-20th century and ever after –
as it seems. The residue of the heroic attempt of l’art pour l’art are many an-
noying questions, repeated, rephrased, connoted and asked: if art is about
statements that artists utter, what happens then to the cherished aesthetics?
To answer such question we should take into account Benjamin‘s observa-
tion, which probably most conclusively wrapped up the contribution of the
concept of l’art pour l’art:
With the advent of the first truly revolutionary means of reproduc-
tion, photography, simultaneously with the rise of socialism, art
sensed the approaching crisis, which has become evident a centu-
ry later. At the time, art reacted with the doctrine of l’art pour l’art,
that is, with a theology of art. This gave rise to what might be called
a negative theology in the form of the idea of “pure” art, which not
only denied any social function of art but also any categorizing by
subject matter. (In poetry, Mallarmé was the first to take this posi-
tion) (Benjamin, 1969: p. 224).
Agamben‘s and Benjamin‘s quotations point to the same direction.
L’art pour l’art through these two (or any among many similar) readings
becomes just an instance in art’s and society’s history. Agamben makes his
point by way of a rather metaphorical mean in a more deep sense than it
seems at first sight, as the point is caught in a dialogue with Nietzsche.
Therefore, his observation of art that “recognizes itself in the ‘golden ball’
of the will to power” could be clearly joined with Benjamin’s hint that ac-
tually the instance of l’art pour l’art achieves the total opposite of the in-
90
est shadow,” art leaves behind the neutral horizon of the aesthetic
and recognizes itself in the “golden ball” of the will to power (Ag-
amben, 1999: p. 2).
This is, of course, one of the possible articulations marking a basic shift
in the very position of art at the time, which followed many social, politi-
cal and spiritual turbulences of the 19th Century. In a way, it is also explain-
ing how it had become possible to talk about the rules of art, as in the case
of Bourdieu. This turn from the spectator to a creator could not ultimately
succeed in its unilateral sense. Even l’art pour l’art mostly reflected more a
hopelessness of its “project” than any serious ambition. However, what was
left of it has been an idea that a work of art might and can contain a state-
ment, or that it even could be above all a statement – no matter how ap-
palled any advocate of the original meaning of the concept would be. Such
ponderings played very visible role in the mid-20th century and ever after –
as it seems. The residue of the heroic attempt of l’art pour l’art are many an-
noying questions, repeated, rephrased, connoted and asked: if art is about
statements that artists utter, what happens then to the cherished aesthetics?
To answer such question we should take into account Benjamin‘s observa-
tion, which probably most conclusively wrapped up the contribution of the
concept of l’art pour l’art:
With the advent of the first truly revolutionary means of reproduc-
tion, photography, simultaneously with the rise of socialism, art
sensed the approaching crisis, which has become evident a centu-
ry later. At the time, art reacted with the doctrine of l’art pour l’art,
that is, with a theology of art. This gave rise to what might be called
a negative theology in the form of the idea of “pure” art, which not
only denied any social function of art but also any categorizing by
subject matter. (In poetry, Mallarmé was the first to take this posi-
tion) (Benjamin, 1969: p. 224).
Agamben‘s and Benjamin‘s quotations point to the same direction.
L’art pour l’art through these two (or any among many similar) readings
becomes just an instance in art’s and society’s history. Agamben makes his
point by way of a rather metaphorical mean in a more deep sense than it
seems at first sight, as the point is caught in a dialogue with Nietzsche.
Therefore, his observation of art that “recognizes itself in the ‘golden ball’
of the will to power” could be clearly joined with Benjamin’s hint that ac-
tually the instance of l’art pour l’art achieves the total opposite of the in-
90
