The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Quote
"Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the original" (paragraph 11).

The aforementioned quote argues that art which are reproduced lack its essence of time. It significance to the period in which the art was done is lacking, there are no connections between the art and its time period. Therefore, viewers can't relate to the essence or importance of such art work during in which is was done. The history of the art has been erased.

I choose this quote because it has some fallacies. Art normally tells a story, well the ones that I have seen. They normally depicts a time in which something vast was happening, whether it be throughout the great depression or during the world wars. Arts are often redone and retouched but I still think its significance and importance remains and last throughout time. Whether, they are reproduced or retouch there are still something in the art that tells the story of the time in which the original was done.

"PAIN by Ernst Junger

Pain has several meaning, it can be feelings of physical suffering or distress due to injuries, illnesses or it can be a mental or emotion suffering or torture.


"Pain confronts us in an even more terrifying way wherever it reaches the source of procreation. Here all significant life forces are in the state of suffocation-the heights of rank and depths of pain stands in immediate relations to each other".

The above quotes refers that pain is felt the greatest where and when it can be multiplied. Social, racial standings don't matter in terms of an encounter with pain; no one is exempt. All are susceptible; its where we are at our greatest weakness.

 I chose the above quote for its interesting phraseology. It is an interesting expression of something that is so rarely understood. The greatest and strongest of men are faced with pain, no one is immune to pain. Pain like death favors no one more than the other, pain does not identity the greatest from the least of men. Pain can cause the most powerful, the most influential, the most successful to be reduced to a child. We all are faced with pain, despite our social status and that is what the aforementioned quote is reminding us.

"Triumph of the Will"

Firstly upon watching this film the first 10 minutes epitomizes the coming of the king. There were thousands of people lining the street waiting to see their "Fuhrer" Hitler. The atmosphere seems happy, joyous and overwhelming. There were marching bands, then at night fall it seems all the joy turned into chaos as building were seeing burning and the place represents that of a ghost town.

Right before the 30 minute mark Nazi leaders were introduced to the crowd. The scene I choose was at the 30min mark until about the 42min mark. In this scene the people of Germany were showing their solidarity and loyalty to Germany, the people of Germany and the ruler of Germany at the Nazi party congress. The soldiers were asked (roll call) where they are from and all who answered were from different places. That scene showed that where you come from doesn't matter we will stand as one. They repeated what is seems like was a motto to the Germany constituents "We are ready to carry Germany into a new era, from one Fuhrer, one people, one Reich Germany. It symbolizes what seems like the rebirth of Germany.

I chose that scene because of the loyalty and solidarity that was portrayed towards Adolf Hitler. I found it to be full of propaganda. Hitler only cared about himself, the people of Germany were loyal to him but he was ruthless and the people (soldiers) were merely his pawn. He used the people of Germany to carry out his acts and millions were massacred during his ruling. The people of Germany had no choice they were ruled under dictatorship and killing and ill will became second nature to them. Another reason I chose that scene was because of how Hitler presence came across, it felt like he was sovereign, untouchable, he was their God. Triumph of the Will presents a great conundrum of art, it was one of the most powerful propaganda, but also one of the most eerie and horrifying film.

Weber

"It is understood that, in reality, obedience is determined by highly robust motives of fear and hope--fear of the vengeance of magical powers or of the power-holder, hope for reward in this world or in the beyond-- and besides all this, by interests of the most varied sort. Of this we shall speak presently. However, in asking for the 'legitimations' of this obedience, one meets with these three 'pure' types: 'traditional,' 'charismatic,' and 'legal" (PG2).
In analyzing the above quote it is stating that obedience is often done out of fear. Fear from one or many things, fear from being presumably punished by those in power. It is also saying that there are rewards from being obedient whether it be earthly rewards or rewards after death (beyond). Weber is questioning whether there are legal stance of traditional, charismatic and legal principles of "obedience".

I chose this quote because it has many variations, and the tenets of one person doesn't define the tenets of everyone. Yes, we are obedient often times out of fear, but to me, on a bigger picture obedience is achieved or practice out of respect. For example, I obey my parents, elders, those in authority because I respect them and not out of I fear, cowards are the ones who people or situations and disobey rules and regulations. I don't think obedience has many hats, its either your obedient or disobedient. Voicing an opinion sometimes can be seen as being disobedient and as such will illicit a punishment especially in a legal system or with your parents. Yes there are rewards for being obedient like there are consequences for being disobedient. If one does not obey the rules of any system whether it be at work, or rules at school and home then you are going to be punished for your disobedience. If you obey the rules for example at home then you will be rewarded with that new play station.
 In concluding obedience can be determined by motives of fear, fear from punishment, fear from jail etc . But, if you obey the law, rules and regulations then you will be rewarded. I guess being rewarded in the beyond is taken from a biblical stance, where you will go to "heaven" and be with God if you follow his commandments. Fear should not determine obedience but it often times do, obedience should be displayed out of respect and not fear.

Rosa Luxemburg: The Junius Pamplet

Rosa Luxemburg  (1871-1919) was a Marxist theorist, philosopher, economist and revolutionary socialist of Jewish-Polish descent who became a naturalize citizen of Germany. She believed that only socialism can bring true freedom and social justice.

"The madness will cease and the bloody demons of hell will vanish only when workers in Germany and France, England and Russia finally awake from their stupor, extend to each other a brotherly hand, and drown out the bestial chorus of imperialist war-mongers and the shrill cry of capitalist hyenas with labor’s old and mighty battle cry" (chapter 8)
  
This is saying that until we all have the same common goal, the world will never be better and the war and hatred will never ends.
 
This is synonymous with the society in which we are living in today where it is all about control and power. The love and care for human beings has become second nature or sometimes is pushed aside. The world is so full of hatred and instead of helping and lifting up we tear down and separate. Their are ongoing wars and power struggles between countries which has cost the lives of countless persons. Those power struggles only leave families separated and in mourning, but government don't seems to care they do whatever they want to get whatever they want and at any cost. Not until we all have the same common goal and unite and love will the blood shedding be over. Not until we realize we are better off united than separated will all the nonsense cease. Until government and countries fully realize the value of people and not things the "brotherly hand" will not be extended. A nihilist will say that will never happen its like hoping in vain. Like Luxemburg I too believe that not one way to bring about freedom is through socialism and not capitalism.

The Reich and Weimar Constitution

 The Reich Constitution was a democratic form of government, that governed Germany during the Weimar Republic, to replace the Monarchy government during the periods 1919-1933.

 Post #1 "The Structure of Government"

Article 20 "The Reichstag is composed by the representatives elected by the German people"

In interpreting article 20, it is stating that the form of governance have changed and the people of Germany now have rights to delegate who they want to lead them. Germany was now a democratic country, the Reichstag was now "for the people by the people".

I was in between which article to choose, but then I decided on article 20 mostly because I am from the Caribbean and I am familiar with imperialism and colonialism. Imperialism is acquisition by a government or territories usually by force for economic or cultural power. When a country is colonize the people of that country has no right, they are oppressed, taken against their will and are voiceless. They have no true form of self identity but are identified by the oppressors, they used by their colonizers to benefit them. They are forced to speak their language and their mother tongue becomes second nature. Jamaica was colonized by England and was ruled under the British regime until they gain independence in 1962. Jamaica's had no choice but to use English as their first language, what tells them apart now is their dialect "patois".  The same can be said of Haiti they were colonized by France and as such speak French Creole. Even though  Germany was not colonize, they were ruled under Monarch government. German people during the monarch period (1871-1918) like many nations and territories that were invaded I am sure was longing for a change of governance. Where their wills and rights could be exercised. A monarch kind of government is just a one man show where that people is said to be sovereign.

Post #2: "The rights of the People"

In order for every any country, territory or business to operate there has to be rules that are governed by constitution. Constitutions are fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation and such are governed.

Article #113 "Reich communities speaking a foreign language may not be deprived by the legislation of their national identity, especially in the use of their mother language in education, in local administration and jurisdiction".

This quote is saying that immigrants have a right to keep their own identity and that they should be given equal access to anything just like a national of Germany.

I choose this quote because again it is familiar. Often times as immigrants because of assimilation we are forced to conform and in the process loose our own identity. If we don't speak English, Spanish or in this case German then we can't get a particular job or we can't hold high offices and have to do the menial jobs. Our language and culture tells us apart form one another and we should always embrace our mother tongue. Nothing is wrong with change and learning, but it doesn't matter where one moves to it is paramount to keep your cultural identity so you can be identified.

M 1931

Assignment for the 10/18/14

I choose the scene from mark 1:40-1:48 when the "murdered" was brought before a prosecution and jury of people and mothers of the children he was on trial for killing. In that scene the convicted murderer was giving reason for his brutal act. He seems like a mad, confused person, he said that he was hearing voices in his head, he was being haunted by ghost and he cant remember anything. He was making a claim that he should not be held responsible for his action as they were done outside of his consciousness. The defense lawyer agreed with him and stated that he should be held in a mental ward because killing him serves no purpose.

I chose this scene because its reminiscent of people who are mentally ill and often times commit crimes they are unaware of until someones point it out to them, but are too confused to grasp the actuality of what they really did.  However, is mental retardation an excuse to kill and not be held responsible, does not being in the right frame of mind an excuse not to be punished? is this a reflection of what a nihilist would say in defending their actions, that they weren't aware of the things they were doing and as such cant be held accountable?. If a crime was brought upon us or a family member by a sick person (mental as in the case of the accused murderer) first thing that would come to mind is justice. But, in seeing this accused murderer and the look he had on his face. Looks of fear, confusion and as if he was lost, would how you feel change, do you think he would be better of being dead or being held in an asylum? As one of the mother's pointed out no one knows the pain of loosing a child and as the prosecutor said "does asylum heal a mentally ill person?. What punishment would be suited for this man?