Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Bella 2/5

“Reproduction differs from the image seen by the unarmed eye” (Benjamin 22). I found this quote in Dr. Rog’s PowerPoint to be one of the most important quotes we discussed in class today. The concept of an “armed eye” is a perfect explanation for the way critical media teaches us to view the world, and it’s an explanation I had never encountered. We are taught concepts, beliefs, and ideas throughout our lives, creating a cultural lens, a trained cultural lens that distorts everything we see. Without an understanding of name, authenticity, importance, value, etc, how do we know what’s real and what’s not, what’s good and what’s bad, what’s authentic and what’s fake? The ability to judge a piece of work does not come from our eyes it comes from our knowledge. We know that certain qualities about a text make it good–music and lighting make a film good, unique, modern designs make architecture good, well-formed ideas and thoughts on paper make a book good. Without those cultural understandings, perception wouldn’t exist. We make arguments based on what we already know and accept as art, but are easily convinced by new arguments. Our ideas of beauty, style, structure, etc. are all drastically different than what they were sixty years ago. Our perceptions are easily molded and changed to fit the fluid nature of the world. It is ever changing, evolving each day, and we, as humans, go right along with the movement, constantly adapting. Our eyes are armed with knowledge that we have collected through our lives and the lives of those before us. Critical Media studies has helped to build up this barrier even more, adding knowledge of the unseen and to create a body of people who do not readily accept everything that is put in front of them. We have become an army of eyes, constantly scanning, judging, deciphering, and interpreting to our hearts’ content. I think that Benjamin would argue that we should break away from this and appreciate the raw, unprotected, naked concept of a new piece of work. He would argue that reproduction of such a piece takes away from its immediate value, its immediate seduction. In order to fully appreciate an original, authentic piece of work, the critic must be turned off, the machines shut down, and we must simply observe and appreciate each text as it is in its most vulnerable state.