Some thoughts for tomorrow’s discussions

As I will probably not be able to join you before 17.00, I would like to make some suggestions for the discussion:

– I think it is good that in many commentaries you try to relate the texts to one another (and you need not stop at this week’s readings, other texts we dealt with earlier may be helpful here as well, even beyond the reading list; Guy Debord certainly is an interesting reference, maybe Nina can expand on this). So you might consider starting to think about where there is common ground, and where there are real points of conflict (Flusser mentions a “dialogue” with Baudrillard – which is of course a virtual one). What about, for instance, Debray’s claiming of Benjamin for mediology? Is Flusser a mediologist? etc.

– Someone hints at the different historical contexts of these texts, in particular Benjamin’s of course. This could also be an issue in the discussion. There are a lot of comments on the Baudrillard text mentioning the weak concept of  “reality”. True – but read Baudrillard as a “postmodern” thinker (he’d probably have hated that tag, but still…). So how does his position read in such a context?

– But the relation between images and the real continues to be an important issue here (Benjamin talks about it, and so does Flusser), and I think this line of thought is worth pursuing.


~ by fkessler on March 2, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: