Different cultures have different standard of good and that is a fact that many believes in. When I read the article that Benjamine wrote, I may have misunderstood his intentions, and if I did I would apologize for my writing. However, his writings, to me, clearly showed how much he dislikes dadaism, which is fine, but comparing dadaism in to an instrument of ballistics? Sayng that dadaists destroyed the aura of their creation? That to me sound nothing more then an insult. Yes, art, in the three levels of economy, is a service sector and the best way for service sector to develope is through critques. But insults are not critiques, insults are destruction, and when I read chapter 14 of the article, I felt like the author was insulting dadaism.
Dadaism is a movement made by a group of artists and it became a part of their culture, or lives. When the author said 'they intended and achieved was a relentless destruction of the aura of their creations', to me it felt like some one was telling me that my culture is evil. Which is probably not something that the author wants to hear when someone is talking about his culture in such way.
I do have to admit though by choosing to use this kind of diction, the author made clear of his point about what film did to art. However I feel that the choice of Benjamine's words were a little too offensive.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기