My contribution to Theme 2 the past week have been primarily in the seminar. We tried to solve out questions in the discussion group, and I contribute with some of my answers and received as well some clarification on my questions. Some questions were difficult for us, so we were in need of help in the open discussion in the seminar.
As preparation, I focused on answering the questions for the seminar and used the theme literature and wikipedia. I looked at the questions, using literature as the source of reading and looked up words in wikipedia when I did not understand parts of the text.
While the previous theme was primarily philosophical, I felt this theme was a combination of philosophy and historical facts. I think finding the connection between the philosophical thoughts and the cultural and political situation in the countries or parts of the world the authors were living in was the key concept in this theme.
Words that I saw clarification in as a result of the seminar/lecture:
Aura was perhaps the most difficult term for me to understand this seminar, and as I understood it now, it has to do with the authentic work (of art for example) which is surrounded by an aura, however once you do a reproduction of it, the aura fades away. For example, when you have a piece of art in a museum, as it is the original, it gets a special kind of attention or value. But once you make a reproduction of it, no matter of what quality, it loses its aura.
Nominalism, as I understood from the lecture and seminar, one could compare this to the leaves on a tree, where none of them are considered them same, but unique. A blue pen can be considered different from a red pen, even though they share the same name.
I enjoyed reading your posts and thought that it was interesting so see which parts you had a hard time understanding at the beginning, how you prepared and contributed and also how you then understood these parts after the seminar. I also felt that I had a much better understanding of the concept of nominalism after the seminar. In addition to what you wrote, have you also thought about how our cognition and need to structure everything is the reason that we group things together that are otherwise, according to nominalism, unique and individual objects?
SvaraRaderaHi,
SvaraRaderaGreat reflection! It seems that you are participating actively in both group discussion and the seminar and that you got your questions answered. I agree with your "key connection" to this seminar, you really had to understand the context of when these texts where written since they have such strong connections to the political arena. But I also want to question your reasoning on aura, even though I agree with what you and what the lecturer is saying. If you look at, for example Mona Lisa, I would still argue that this original piece of painting still contains a special, unique aura that hasn't faded due to reproduction. It's still a whole other experience to watch it in Louvren compared to a post card.
You really picked it up from your first post on this theme! The reflection is, though kind of short, well made! I would've liked you to perhaps talk more about if anything still was unclear to you? That because it seemed like you were uncertain whether or not your answers to the questions in the first post were right or not. You could expand your reasoning on the terms like Aura and Nominalism a little bit more.
SvaraRaderaAlas, great reflections even though I think you could have talked more about the concepts and what you discussed about them and stuff!!
Keep it up!
Aura for me also most confusing therm from this theme. On our seminar we had an example of religious relics and how they produce some special feelings and have something unique for some of the people. I find that this example depicts term aura in an understandable way.
SvaraRaderaTo your explanation of nominalism I would just like to add that it not only refuses general terms as you said but also abstract objects and ideas.
Hey!
SvaraRaderaNice post and great conclusions.
The example of the leaves and pens used to explain nominalism were not used in our seminar group but they explain the term very good. It depicts nominalists rejection of generalisation perfectly.
Aura was also very difficult for me to understand and explain but I agree that the artistic or natural objects that we perceive as having aura are unique, exceptional and have a out of this world quality to them.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaI think "aura" is a term to replace the "soul" of the art objects.Like a human's heart,the art objects also have their central station for their own to control themselves and give them life,emotion and language.When you stand in the front of an art object,there should have a communication.You could have the feeling to understand it which is set by the artist,otherwise,you will feel nothing Because you only perceive it,it does not give a response.Thanks for sharing
Hi!
SvaraRaderaIt really seems you got a lot out of the seminar and that you had a great role in you group of the one who got to spread what you know about the theme. It is always great to explain to someone else what you have learned becuse then you truly know that you yourself have understood.
You could have discussed more concepts from this weeks theme because your reflection is very well written and interesting to read!
Hi!
SvaraRaderaI also had difficulties grasping the term "aura". I think that was because the examples that Benjamin presents in his text are a but out of context today. Your example with an art piece at a museum is more suitable today!
Hi, very nice reflection, it's more structured than the first one, and I have the same feeling about this theme was a combination of philosophy and historical facts. It's nice to see you wrote how to browse and contribute for this theme, I think it's a good structure of reflection.
SvaraRadera