Arozin - Critical media studies

What is "Enlightenment"?

I interpreted enlightenment as the adoption of rational thinking and science to overcome the fear and doubt. and to give man the power of understanding and a more advanced way of thinking. And enlightenment is the only way to modern science and the concept of demythologization. I interpreted enlightenment as the opposite and mortal enemy of myth, and vice versa.

What is "dialectic"?

Dialectic is a way of solving disagreement through rational discussion. It’s a way of interpret something from its features which hands the decision over to the truth. It’s a state of mind which capitalize on rational thinking rather then basing conclusions on myths and stories.

What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

I think nominalism is a way of thinking to stand up against the world of myth. Nominalism encourages man to believe in the real world, and not a fantasy world produced by myth.

What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

I interpret it as a state of mind, that you base your life and actions upon a myth or a legend, that you draw your conclusions based on a fantasy rather than rational thinking. Myth is what enlightenment is not, and myth tries to describe the world through fiction, stories and superstition, and enlightenment is based on the rational use of knowledge, science and empirical evidence.

According to Adorna and Horkheimer, myth is a product of enlightenment.

In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

I define the concept of superstructure and substructure as different ways that culture and the production of culture evolves and changes.

In a Marxist perspective the substructure is what defines a society which includes the production of the bourgeoisie, and superstructure is the ideas, culture, science and inventions which is built upon the means of production. A Marxist would say that an economic substructure can change and define the superstructure of culture. I interpret that as that the economic changes in the world will set the standards of cultural improvement. It is important to analyze this since in a  marxist way a well working superstructure depends on a  well working substructure, which in my oppinion todays cultural bussiness is based upon.

Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?3 9 17 22

I interpret the texts as Benjamin didnt think that the improvement of specifik culture changes had as big of an impact as society would think. But I understand him as that he still thought that culture is one of mans greatest revolutionary potentials abd greatest powers when she wanted to change the world. He made an example of the concept “a picture says more then a  thousand words” and especially the cultural art of film and movies as the new artform, which easily could describe the problems of the world, and could capture the visual emotions of an actor, which combined with a great manuscript, camera angles and effects, really touched and influence the soul and feelings of the perceivers, and thereby possessed the power to revolutinate the world.

Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

I interpret this as the product of great changes in history that change the overall way man perceive things. An example of historically determined perception is the fall of the roman empire in the late fifth century, which changed the art industry from an antique influence into early medieval.

Another way history have changed the perception of something is the approach to war. throughout the antique, medieval and renaissance the waging of war was something of honour and tradition, and in my oppinion this changed during the world war century. and I think this is due to the changes in culture and communications media, suddenly people at home and in other countries saw what was going on, and what horrific acts of brutality and inhumanity that occured during this period of time. And frankly, the waging of war today is seen as a last way of resort, and is mostly avoided by the creation of organizations as the United nations. Man has changed her perspective of war, due to the improvements in culture, communications media and later experiences.

What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

An aura can be defined in many different ways, basically it is something an object or a person radiates, and mainly it’s a kind of a feeling. In the text they define the natural aura as the unique phenomena of distance, as if you see a house in the distance you you feel the aura of the house, you draw conclusions from the house and sorroundings, and you can almost say that it’s not the objects themselves that influence man, but it’s the objects aura. The aura of art objects is more of a subjective matter. man perceive the feeling of an object based on earlier experiences, as the example with the statue of Venus in the text. The ancient Greeks saw it as a sign of reverence and respect, but the medieval clerics saw an ominous symbol of heracy. but both of the perceivers had one thing in common, the feeling and interpretation of the objects aura.