As an introduction to the seminar, we
discussed realism in contrast to nominalism. Realism in the arts is the attempt
to represent subject matter truthfully, without artificiality and avoiding
artistic conventions. (1) Furthermore, we explained that according to
Nominalism we are all individuals.
In the world
according to Plato, we look at shadows or reflections of something and what we perceive
with our eyes is only a reflection. Therefore in Nominalism, concepts are just
names and are not real. This example was really helpful since I did not get it
quit right in the beginning.
Furthermore, we concentrated on what is
important in Adorno and Horkheimer’s text. I have learnt that my approach is
correct but not what Adorno and Horkheimer tried to express. In contrast to my
approach that Nominalism undermines National Socialism, we figured out that it
actually upholds it. Nominalism is a way for fascism to have a status quo. It
becomes dangerous if we only take for granted what we see since you have no
vision what could be. Therefore, we should probably find new kinds of concepts,
e. g. concepts of Human Rights. In addition, we mentioned that the concepts of
gender politics can be revolutionary.
Regarding mass media and Enlightment, we
figured out that movies portray life as it is instead of something we can
strive to. Benjamin hoped that ordinary people will be in the superstructure
and that it becomes more common. Work will change ideas but ideas will not
change work. If you change the production you might change the ideas, e.g.
change physically things in factories. Therefore, my approach that society
determines the culture is correct. Furthermore, we discussed that art has
revolutionary potential since it might grow from a substructure. Due to zooming
or cutting, you will get a fragmented picture of the world looks like. If the
change is big enough than it will change the superstructure. Benjamin thinks
that movies depict ordinary people and give them dignity. In contrast to this, Adorno
and Horkheimer think that ordinary people do not have revolutionary potential,
since young girls are always shown as secretaries. This was quit helpful for me, since I
understand the difference between them but was not able to give an example.
During the discussion about “Aura”, I
could contribute by saying that the first car or first iPhone had (more) aura
than later models
You have written really good posts, I especially enjoyed the part in the reflection where you discuss how your understanding of nominalism in connection with National Socialism changed. I also thought that the concepts nominalism and realism were hard to grasp and I realized through the seminar discussions that I had not fully understood what these concepts actually meant. On one point I am not sure I agree with you, and that is where you state that according to Adorno and Horkheimer, ordinary people do not have revolutionary potential. I rather think that it is the culture, in this case inn form of movies that does not have revolutionary potential. I think this would make for an interesting discussion!
AntwortenLöschenHi Corinna,
AntwortenLöschenyou have written a great reflection after your preblog. I enjoyed reading it. It's good that you point out that nominalism was a way of Fascism to keep the status quo. They only stated the obvious, only registered what is or in this case argued that Germans are better than Jews, instead of showing what could have been- this is why nominalism is such an important concept in the text. Therefore you on the right track bringing up Human Rights as a new vision. Great job!
Hi Corinna,
AntwortenLöschenIt's very glad reading through your comments of the seminar. I feel thankful that you shared us with your thoughts. Good job! We all actually had some question about the lecture last week, but it is glad that we all figured it out during the seminar! I am looking forward to having a nicer discussion with you in the following seminars!
Hi Corinna!
AntwortenLöschenThank you for a interesting post! As well as you, I kind of misunderstood the meaning of nominalism until the seminar last week. I like the part in you text when you are discussing the enlightenment and I have started to think of examples were art has a big part in our society and I think that the painting Mona Lisa by Michelangelo as always has interested people, and I believe the painting maybe can has changed the society a bit.
Hello Corinna!
AntwortenLöschenThanks for interesting reading. I agree with you that it was difficult to understand nominalism and that it helped to talk to classmates and to go on the lecture and the seminar. I think you have an interesting discussion regarding the substructure and superstructure, especially with your quote "Due to zooming or cutting, you will get a fragmented picture of the world looks like". Really good job!
/Paul
Hey!
AntwortenLöschenThis is a nice post and I concur with your conclusions. I find your example for aura very interesting and true. It is our perception and expectation that make thing special and experience them as they are having and aura.
From this lecture my take away was that there is a need to balance between the views and theories of the world. If you define yourself as a strict follower of a specific "school" of taught it usually leads to extreme results.
Hey,
AntwortenLöschenWell, i could say you post is the best what i comments other posts in this seminar. I mean, you make a very completely and detialed explaination about the concepts of nominalism and super/substructure. Reading you post makes my thought rearranging and organization in my mind which are piecemeal and scattered in my mind before.
What attracted me is you mentioned that "Nominalism is a way for fascism to have a status quo". There is no any human rights under this polices, human could be controlled since we are not know what the truth will be. We stopped thinking and questioning in that status, and it will be danger cause nothing could be any changed anymore.
I also agree with you description of Benjamin's thought about superstructure and substructure. In general they can influenced each other, but for the change of superstructure need a long times accumulations which can complete overthrow of the existing concepts of people, or could say the time changing, which like you told society can determined the culture is right or not. I am very agree for that point.
The part which you wrote about Benjam and Andoro's viewing about ordinary people is very interesting, and also the example of aure in the end. In short, you have a well done job. Thanks for sharing you post:)
I think we were in the same group for the seminar, so we had the same information given by the teacher. So I completely agree with what you said about the different points of the lesson.
AntwortenLöschenWhat is caught my attention is your last sentence about « aura » of the first car or the first IPhone. I find really interesting to twist the first meaning of this concept to apply to actual and modern objects that we can use everyday. I think that every new object has a kind of aura because as it is new, it appears as an exceptional thing that maybe you were waiting for a long time. And this is this expectation that provide aura to this object.
Maybe you should have developed more this idea in your post :) to share your deep thoughts about that with us!
Hi,
AntwortenLöschenThanks for your sharing. Your explanation of nomialism is really helpful to me. It is difficult for me to understand before seminar, and in the seminar we discussed some examples. I think your point that nominalism undermines National Socialism, and we figured out that it actually upholds it. Nominalism is a way for fascism to have a status quo. It becomes dangerous if we only take for granted what we see since you have no vision what could be, is a good reflection to nominalism. Thank you a lot!