Theme 2: Critical media studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment

What is "Enlightenment"?

I found the following definition in the text:

“Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought”

What is "Dialectic"?

Dialectic seems to be a method to think from different perspectives when trying to rationalize a thought or concept.

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

Nominalism seems to be concerning the fact that a name is only a word referring to something, or at times several things. Names are not specific markers on any specific being or thing. Since myths are discussed in the text, I think that nominalism is important here because it is a term that shows that we only have names on our explanations of the world, but they are not actually the answers to our observations, just words for them.

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


I interpret myth to be the word that refers to the outdated ways humans have tried to interpret and explain their own world before they had any other concepts on how their surroundings work.

The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity

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?


Superstructure, I interpret, is a word that has to do with the structure of a hierarchy. A superstructure seems to be a structure where there is segregation between different people based on classes.

Substructure seems to me to be the opposite of a superstructure where there is no clear segregation into different classes.

In his essay Benjamin is talking from the perspective of the masses. And with his essay I think he is trying to discuss how politics and culture can be related, and that art often mirrors the perspective of the masses themselves. In other words Benjamin writes through the eyes of the masses and I think that is why he has a Marxist perspective.

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?

Benjamin talks about art as a way of mirroring the present situations in a time and place. He mentions how conventional art, art that we are more used to, is looked at and appreciated on a far less reactionary level than, to us, surrealistic art. I think Benjamin is trying to say that art can have an impact on people, it can mirror and/or criticize our reality and get a reaction “from the masses” by doing so. I think that Benjamin would consider art to be able to create reactions in the masses so that a wish to revolutionize their own reality would grow. To summarize I think that Benjamin’s perspective is that culture can have revolutionary potentials.

As for Adorno & Horkheimer I would say that they also discuss how culture has revolutionary potentials. In their text they, among other subjects, mention how mythology affected the people living by it. Now by saying that culture, as in the presentation of our perception of the world, affects how we live and act I would say that they would believe that culture can have revolutionary potentials.

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).

Naturally determined perception is based on how we by an aura can perceive the natural objects, which I give an example of in my answer to question 5.

Benjamin discusses the authenticity of a reproduction of art. He says that if there is more history to a work of art it has more authenticity. He mentions changes in physical condition and various changes in ownership as examples of historically determined perception.

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

I think that an aura, according to Benjamin, would be what one would have removed from an object after trying to reproduce it. For example Benjamin mentions film as a tool to reproduce an object. He writes that actors are only able to build an artificial personality on stage.

With this example he seems to mean that the original personality that an actor is trying to portray may never be exactly like the original personality behind the character (or person) in mind. What the actor is not able to reproduce is the aura of that original character (or person).

If an art object can survive the test of time that will be a part of its authenticity. When reproducing an art work the proof of it having been part of a historical period of time and a specific place may no longer exist within the reproduced work of art. This would define the aura of an art object. However this does not concern the aura of a natural object.

A natural object, I interpret, is described as a something unique with a distance from the observer, no matter how close they stand. If we are experiencing a natural object, for example a branch, we can be affected by it from afar, by a shadow for instance. What we then perceive is the aura from that natural object.