Theme 2: Critical media studies - Comments

1. I think your reflection really captured what we have talked about in seminars and what has been presented during the lecture. I like your explanation of why Adorno & Horkheimer thought of nominalism as something that could be used in a negative manner in movies. I also like that you have written a clear distinction of how Adorno & Horkheimer think that media can affect people versus how Benjamin think that media could affect people. I think that you have understood the terms we have discussed and I think that your last part was very interesting, and would have liked to read more and maybe have gotten some examples of what you mean by us thinking freely by conceptualising what we see.

2. I find your text very easy to follow and you are good at summarizing what you have learnt. I find the last part of your reflection interesting. Especially where you write that media “takes away people’s ambition for change. Just as enlightenment, media fails to question the world. “

I find the discussion about mass media and media in these seminars interesting, because I am curious as to what kind of media we sometimes are discussing. My thought is that media in the form of cinema and media in the form of news are different ways of talking about media. With that in mind, maybe media in some cases is able to raise awareness by mirroring a current situation, and thereby encourage a change?

3. I really like your explanation of Platonic realism, it explains the concept well and is easy to understand. I think it shows that you have a good understanding of it. 

I think that the examples with the paintings in the Swedish university are interesting, and it would have been interesting to hear more about what you think the connection between them and historically influenced perception is:).

4. I agree that it is interesting how time and perception are connected in a sense. I like that you elaborated your thoughts on time and perception with your own example, and not only with examples from the lecture.

Do you mean that:

A nominalist would not question the chair. It is a chair, it stands there and it looks a certain way and that is it.

The realist, however,would look at it as a perception of a chair. It is “not only” a chair to a realist, it is our perception that tells us that it is a chair. There is more to it than we perceive?

If you do, then I think I understood what you meant by the example with the chair.

5. It seems like you had an interesting seminar with an interesting discussion on mass media. I agree that naturally and historically determined perception are interesting concepts!I think your overall discussion and thoughts about historically determined perception is easy to follow and interesting to read. Sometimes I feel that you do not follow through with explaining your thoughts and the structure of the reflection becomes a bit unclear. However you should follow your thoughts through, they are interesting to read :)! For example in the beginning where you mention eight questions that helped you understand clearly. What were the questions? What did they help you understand?