Rules Of The Game #31: Rockism And Antirockism Rise From The Dead

[koganbot]

Here's my latest, in which I reveal myself to be a rockist, unless that's not what I'm revealing. I also don't come to a conclusion about what rockism is. Stay tuned for the exciting sequel.

The Rules Of The Game #31: Rockism And Antirockism Rise From The Dead

EDIT: Here are links to all but three of my other Rules Of The Game columns (LVW's search results for "Rules of the Game"). Links for the other three (which for some reason didn't get "Rules Of The Game" in their titles), are here: #4, #5, and #8.

UPDATE: I've got all the links here now:

http://koganbot.livejournal.com/179531.html

Comments

Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

My friend's response:

"let me know if this helps:

you've kind of got it right both ways -- that's part of the beauty of this essay. Benjamin mourns the loss of the aura, but also argues that, with mechanically reproduced art, it's important to acknowledge that the aura is gone. The significance of the aura might be boiled down to the work of art bearing a mark of its having been made. Perhaps this comes in the form of brush strokes in a painting or layers of soot on a sculpture. When encountering an artwork that has an aura, Benjamin finds it difficult to ignore the unique perspective of the work's maker. In other words, objects are not neutral, and the aura reminds us of this.

Mechanically reproduced art, removed from the touch of its maker, has the ability to appear unbiased. The way that fascist filmmakers manipulated this factor scared Benjamin so he called for makers of mechanically reproduced art to include other elements that would remind viewers that the object in question is not free from bias. With "aestheticized politics," Benjamin basically refers to this practice. "Politicized aesthetics," on the other hand, describes the act of consciously mobilizing art for political ends -- and acknowledging that intention somehow through the formal elements of the work (think dada photomontage). "

Re: Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

And my question is still....WHY? Why on earth should a film not be seen as a product of its makers? Wasn't Leni Reifenstahl held directly and personally accountable for her involvement in producing Nazi propaganda? Wasn't Otis Ferguson seeing right through this trash in the late 30's anyway and wondering what sort of dope, even a Nazi, could possibly fall for it? (Answer to both questions is yes.)

Re: Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Re: Response from FilmFriend...

"some people did understand the mechanics of film production. his problem was with things like classical editing practices that masked many of the processes of filmmaking. In thinking about Nazi propaganda films, there's a huge change from expressionist cinema, where it's undeniable that there's a lot of manipulation going on... I don't think it's necessarily the whole medium of film that scares benjamin, but, rather, the way it can be mobilized (to aestheticize politics) when put into the wrong hands."

Re: Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

within ordinary art then and now there is (for whatever reason) a massive tendency to elide the production produce; to idealise the final object and overlook the process of its arrival, treat its making as not just a distraction from the appreciation, but a kind of vulgar interruption* -- even yr point abt leni does this: actually LOTS of people were involved in the making of her films apart from her, from the people down on the floor on the day to the people who ran the factories who deliver the celluloid; and the argument that she was "ultimately" in control is just that, an argument, not a fact

there was a fashion in the late 19th century for orchestras to play behind screen so the sight of the moving arms and puffing mouths would not discompose the blissed-out listener -- that was an extreme development, but the idea that "oh! now we are surely smarter about all this!" is nonsense... there's an essay in the current Film Quarterly (from a well-known film historian and former commissioning editor at the BFI) pointing out how RARE it is that film-making is EVER treated as a contested collectivity... buried assumptions within auteurism as a thesis, the relationship between assumptions of authorship and claims about authority and authenticity, don't just end when you switch an element of creativity and decision-power over to the audience (partly bcz imagined provenance as a glamour can muffle actual provenance as a fact, but it can't erase it...): instead they become hyper-complex, and contestable themselves -- energies of debate and fields of possibility, in fact

(the bit i like in that particular essay is when the bikeboys are all talkin abt the film and all know everything about it <--- they are waiting for the NME TO COME OUT!)

Re: Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Should have clarified that I meant that holding Leni responsible (almost solely) is a fault of the audience's, but the need for a "maker" (however multiple the maker actually is) means that, I think, most people view films (in all points in its history) as something constructed. I guess maybe a counter-example would be...I dunno, March of Time? The news? Which is another conversation to have, but not having much to do with the fact that this is a mechanically reproducible thingy.

Also, I think a lot of what you're saying here does get at some issues in pop production I WISH I could get into (as I put it in some other essay, the difference between a "cabal" and an "army" -- you can know the whole cabal!) but have to leave. Ten minutes ago (woops)...

Re: Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[koganbot]

Not that I'm indifferent to how something is made (and as a critic I lean towards auteurism, actually, which doesn't have to evade the multiplicity of authors, in fact it encouraged my interest in the multiplicity), but I feel it (and maybe Benjamin) maybe misses something:

(1) As per Wittgenstein, to understand something you have to understand the social practices it is a part of, and so a mark or an "aura" (wtf) of an original or unique work (from an original and presumably unique artist or group of artists?) is not necessarily relevant unless such a mark is part of a social practice. That is, to understand a stop sign you don't need to know a lot about who made it but you do need to know about the social practice it is part of, so knowing the authorship doesn't do you much good unless you know the social practice. (Of course, if you know the author you can ask him about the social practice.)

(2) But how authorship makes it into the rock story of "authenticity" has basically to do with hero stories about class and resistance to authority etc., and my complaint about uses of the words "authenticity" and "rockism" is that they don't seem to bring people to a discussion such stories, though they do help people to wave their hands in that direction.