When I wrote the first blog post describing nominalism, I now see I didn’t fully understand it. After discussing it in the seminar with my co-students and listening to Henrik I feel I understand it better now. In my first post I didn’t write that much about how Adorno and Horkheimer use nominalism and why it’s important in the text, and now I understand it better. Nominalism denies categorizations in the world, and reject the universal truths. According to Adorno and Horkheimer there are no such things as hierarchies in nature, that’s something that we have created in society.
During the seminar we discussed the downside of nominalism, that nominalism tends to contain structure and that the world and society are the way they should be, containing status quo. There’s no such thing as value judgement, we should only observe and not make moral judgements about what we observe. And according to Adorno and Horkheimer, categorization leads to social oppression.
Putting that into context and applying nominalism to for example Germany during the II world war, nominalism tends to contain structure, and would then accept that Jews are weak and Germans are strong. You can’t find human rights in nature, as it is something we have created, and would then be denied by nominalism. Adorno and Horkheimer critiqued nominalism as you also need to consider human values, ethics, morals, and culture. Do we actually want things just as they are? Or do we want to change society into what we want it to be?
Another thing I was reflecting on was Benjamin’s concept of Aura. The aura of something is its uniqueness, it’s cultural value, and it’s here and now. A picture of the Mona Lisa that you find on the internet, does not have the same aura as the original. And the original doesn’t have the same aura today as when it was painted. When media production came along and it was possible to mass-produce and copy art, it destroyed the piece’s uniqueness.
By doing so, mass producing and making art available to the public and not just the rich elite, it brought art to an equal level, available to both rich and poor. Today anyone can listen to music and see movies, theatres and symphonies travel around, coming to you instead of only the ones fortunate enough to go see them. However, just because the aura is changed from the original, doesn’t mean there’s not aura at all, and the copied pieces brings its own aura.
For the question about substructure and superstructure, I could have definitely analyzed a lot more. I now understand the concept better, and see the importance. If substructure changes first, and changes superstructure, new technological developments, new apps, new websites, new items, can be a way of changing society. During the seminar we made the connection between this and modern media, such as films and music, and as substructure changes superstructure, we need to first look at how superstructure is represented in substructure. Applying that to feminism, they way to change the patriarchy and how women are perceive in society, is to do so in the substructure first, like in films, music, video games, apps etc.
Hi,
ReplyDeletenominalism was also quite a difficult concept for me from the very beginning but we also had a look at it through the term "human rights". We've also been told that nominalism changes over the time. We've also been asked whether it is good or bad when art pieces loose aura because of reproduction, and the answer was rather "yes" as it brought art from the level for "VIPs only" to "all the rest".
Your posts showed good understanding and were pleasant to read. I recognize having same thoughts during the seminar, especially about the concept of aura and nominalism. At the very first post the concept of nominalism felt difficult to define, but you seem to have adopted the term well since you're giving an accurate example of it as well! I find the power structures of today's societies very interesting, since we sometimes use a lot of energy arguing them, while at the same time we are the ones making them exist by adjusting to those hierarchies. For example, movie stars and other celebrities of the social media era simply would not have the power of being thought leaders unless we gave it to them. Same goes for people in power in politics.
ReplyDeleteAs for the concept of aura, I remember discussing the term during the seminar and especially the question whether a mass produced piece of art has an aura or not. At first it like Benjamin is claiming the aura to disappear in the process of reproduction, but from where I stand, it doesn't make the aura of an original piece any less significant. It brings the art closer to average people, yes, when you can buy a T-shirt with a Mona Lisa in it. But it still doesn't replace the original one or make it any less valuable.
Great reflecting, thank you for an interesting reading experience!
Thank you for interesting reflections and a well written post!
ReplyDeleteYour question on whether we want things just as they are, or if we want to change society into what we want it to be, made me think of the concept of mimesis and the dangers of having a society based on mythology. Because, if we strive to explain the world by making it into what we want it to be (i.e. understandable) we might fail to acknowledge the reality around us.
Your post was easy to follow, and I really appreciated your way of bringing media technology in as an explaining factor for aura and the potential loss of it through media.
Hi, I really like the way you presented the concept of nominalism. Like you, before seminar I was a little bit confused about nominalism and it's meaning and importance to A&H. I did not see nominalism's downside and it was hard to understand how it can oppress people. Categorization in a way put people into "sections" or "boxes" that are hard to break out from, that's why during those times we had such a great break out of movements of feminism, human right's and so on. People started questioning it as nominalism started oppressing people. Furthermore, I really agree how you reflected on aura. I also do believe that even after reproduction, art can have it's own uniqueness. For example, great artist A. Warhol's works were based mainly on a reproduction but it still had it's authenticity and difference. Thanks for such a great read!
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that the way to change the perception of women in society is by changing the perception of women "in the substructure first, like in films, music, video games, apps etc", I get the feeling you consider films, music etc are part of the substructure, with which I can't agree. They are, from what I understand, part of culture, which is part of the superstructure.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on nominalism, however, really enhanced my understanding. Thank you for that!
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your reflection and the perspectives that you discuss in your blog.
I don’t think that it is possible to take things as they just are, as you mention Human Right’s can’t be found in nature, but these morals and values are important for us. I think that Nominalism is neither wrong nor right. We should find a balance in how we categorise and what we are categorising to avoid certain generalizations, but still have certain boundaries. But I agree that Nominalism isn’t the way to get this balance either.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat your wrote about art and mass production (it become available to the public not just to the rich) is the reason why Benjamin arguing that culture has revolutionary potentials, the possibility of reproducing art democratizes culture. Modern technology also changed the way people learn and experience the world and which Benjamin believed had radical political implications, art could also restore experience that hade been lost in the modern society.
ReplyDeleteYou did a god job with your blog post, it was easy to read and to fellow your thoughts. Well done.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteInteresting how you put feminism in the context of superstructure. I definitely agree. As women have been more visible and portrayed in more various ways in media, I believe the superstructure/idea of femininity and equality has been able to develop. Art has always been a tool for revolutionary ideas, and I think modern technology gives it new methods to use and opens up new territory to reach. In this way, we are very dependent of the substructure in order to achieve progress.
You seem to have learned a lot thanks to the seminar, thanks for a well written summary.
I think your answers in the first post were really good and it seems like you had a good understanding of the concepts from just reading the texts.
ReplyDeleteYou say in your reflection that you didn't completely comprehend the meaning of nominalism and that the seminar gave you deeper understanding of it (it was the same way for me). Your new take on the concept is much more complex and profound. It's great that you can give examples and that you relate to the texts.