ised gee Ee The Dialectics of Seeing Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project Susan Buck-Morss ‘The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England5 ‘Sith pong, 1995 Fst MIT Bees paperback scien, 19 (©1949 Suse Back Morse For Enc Siggia Al reserved Nort of his oak mare repuced inan arm by any ese oF mecca ean Gs plesceupran, recanted ea Without permission awning hom hep er ‘This book was set an Baskerville by Asco Trade Typeeting Lid Hong Kong a priced nd bound in the Used Stat of Amen Library of Congress Cataloingn-Publiaton Data Back Mores. Susan “Thedutestes esc Sonne BeteAlre 2m —(Studicc contemporary Gena socal toh As Gag econsiocom an aula Rens Pangea ave Biography: Ineledeinaee ISBN 0-26.02268.0tharceote) 0.252.264-9 papesbach) 1 Benjamin, Walter, 102-1990, Pasgen ter War HD41940—Peleopy. 2. Bent Polis ahd sacl ewe 1. Passages eke Eng 189 Proois.EissPis) ae ‘9s 361081 acto Walter Beran and the Arcades proeet! Water, 182-1906 ann Matin 1-910, ite Th Sens tssua cleContents Preface Part 1 Introduetion | Temporal Origins 2 Spatial Origins Part It Intreduetion 3 Natural History: Poss 4 Mythic History: Fetish 5 Mythic Nature: Wish Image 6 Histoncal Nature: Ruin Part Iit Introduction 7 Is This Philosophy? 8 Dream World of Mass Culture 9 Materialist Pedagogy no 159 205 216 253, 275 ‘Mythic Nature: Wish Image 1 , ‘The arcades as dream- and wish-image of the collective.' Benjamin was struck by an incontestabie, empirical fact: Consis- tently, when modern innovations appeared in modern history, they took the form of historical restitutions, New forms “cited” the old ‘ones out of context. Thus: “There is an attempt to master the new experiences of the city in the frame of the old ones of traditional nature”? And: “[The nineteenth century develops] a thirst for the past." | Te was “insane that the Freneh fashions of the Revolution and Napoleon 1's Empire mimicked the [ancient] Greek proportions with modern cut and sewn elothing.”* The Passagen-IWerk material is full of evidence of this fusion of old and new, Fashion continuously drew on the past: *[W]ith the Munich Exposition of 1875, the German Renaissance became fashionable."3 Mechanical looms in Europe mimicked handwoven shatwls from the Orient, while the first women’s “sportswear” (de~ signed in the 1890s for bicycle riding) “strove [with its tight-fitang waists and rococo skirts} for the conventional ideal-image of elegance,"® When Baudelaire scarched for the words to describe the specifically modern straggies af the urban poet, he revived the “archaic image of the fencer.” When social utopians conceived of new, communal societies it was as a restitution of small-scale agri- talansterie, a highly complex, culcural production. Fourer’s m 5 Nythie Nature: Wish Image rachinelike social organization conceivable only within a modern context! was to produce “the land of Cockaigne, the urold swish symbol of leisure and plenty [, 8 Nowhere was the restorative impulte more evident than in the forms taken by the new technologies themselves, which innitated precisely the old forms they were destined to overcome. Early photography mimicked painting. The first railroad ears were de- signed like stage coaches, and the first electric light bulbs were shaped like gas flames.'! Newly processed iron was used for orna- ‘meni rather than structural supports, shaped into leaves, or made to resemble wood." Industrially prod.ced utensils were decorated to resemble flowers, fauna, seashells, and Greck and Renaissance antiques." “Wild Salome” appeared in a Jugendatl poster for cagareites." The newly invented bieycle was named by a poet “the Horse of the Apocalypse.” And the earliest form of air travel was celebrated by a staging of Uranus’ nse from the earth ‘The balloon driver Poitevin, underwritten by great publicity, undertook tn his gondola [during the Second Republic) an ascension of Uranus vt maidens dressed up as mvthologieal figures!" In the field of architecture, the wrought ron and steel that was first developed for railroads"? would ultimacely be combined with glass for the construction of modern skyserafers.“ But the Passages, the first constructions of iron and glass, instead resembled Christian churches,!® while the first depa glassed-in roofs “secmed to have been modeled after Oriental bazaars.""® Benjamin speaks of iron and glass “come too early" “In the middle of the last century 1 one ver had an inkling of how to build with arom and glass." An early entry an the Passagen-Ierk notes: “Transportation in the stage of myth, Industry 1m the stage of myth. (Railroad stations and early {aetories)."2 The 1935 ex- pose elaborates: “[Early nmeteenth-century] architects mimic the pillars of Pompeiian columns; factories mimic private villas, as ! later the first railroad stations are modeled on chalets." “"One simply transferred the way of buileling with wood onto iron’."25 Under the archaic masks of ciassical myth (figure 5.1) and tradi tional nature (figure 5.2), the inherent potential of the “new nature—machines, iron shaped by new processes, technologies and industrial materials of every sort—remained unrecognized, unconscious. At the same ume, these masks express the desire 10 went stores with their immensenz Pare TTM4 Parc “return to a mythic ume when human beings were reconciled with the natural world Benjamin wtites: “Fashion, ike arebtteccure, |. stands in the arkness ofthe lived moment [im Dunkel des gelebien Augenblicts} He hus taken this phrase from Ernst Bloch. It is central to Bloch's social utopian philosophy, deseribing the mystical wme stan," the momentary, fleeting experience of ‘ufillment dimly anticipitory of a reality that is “notyet.” Aecordiag to Benjamin, ifthe “not-yet” of the new nature is expressed im archaic symbols rather than in new forms commensurate with it then this condition of modern con sciousness has its parallel the inadequacies of development in the economic base. He 1s most explicit m a passage from the Passagen- Werk exposé. It begins with a quotation from Jules Michelet: “Every epoch dreams the one that illows it.” Benjamin comments “To the form of the new means of production which mn the begining i til dominated by te old one (Mars), thare correspond inthe eollecive eon Soousness images in which the neu siniermungled vith the old. These Jimages are wish images, and in them the collec attemspis to transcend 3s well a5 (0 illimine the incompletedness of the socal order of produc- ton. There algo emerges in these wish images & positive string to set, themselves off fom she outdated—that means, however the most recent post These tendencies rr the image fantasy, that martoins i impulse From he new back othe wean Ih rea wich every po ec tn images the epoch tat fllows, ie later appear wedded to elements o J Geitstery, that iy ofa castes soci, Is expences, whieh have their storage place in the unconscious of th elleedve, produce, in thei ante Denciration with the new, the atopa shat has Tees trace bebind 10 a Thousand configurations of life from permanent buildings to ephemeral fashions” ‘The real possibility ofa classless society in the “epoch to follow” tke presen one, Hevitalizes past images as cxpressions of the ancient wish for social utopia in dteam form. But a dream image is not yeta dialectical smage, and desire is not yet knowledge. Wishes and dreams are psychological categories which for Benjamin have ro immediate status as philosophical truth. Parting company with the romanticism of Ernst Bloch (who in turn eriticized Benjamin's “surrealist philosophizing” for its tack of subjectivity), Benjamin was reluctant to rest revolutionary hope directly on imagination’s capacity to anticipate the not-ye:-existing. Even as wish image, ‘utopian imagination needed to be nterpreted through the material us. 5 Mythic Nature: Wish Tonge ‘objects in which i¢ found expression, fer (as Bloch knew) it was upon the transforming mediation of mater that the hope of utopia ulumately depended: technology's capacity to create the not-yete known. 2 ‘The text on collective wish images citec above makes theoretical assertions rather than arguments, and they are by no means sell evident. It may be helpful to consider the passage more closely, this {ime in ati earlier version of the exposé that is significantly different in wording and somewhat less elliptical: To the form of the new means of production that nthe begining is stl dominated by de old one (Mara), there corespond in te tell super Structure wish images in which the new is intermngled with the old in Fantastic ways." Now, Marx argued that when the new means of production comes into being, its socialist potential is fettered by still-existing capital- 'st relations—hence the inadequacy of development of the ceono- mic base, But as an entry in Konvolut F, “Tron Construction,” makes clear, Benjamin believed these fetters must be understood in terms of the collective imagination, as inadequacies of form as well as of social rolations—and that he undersiood Mar to have meant this as well. Beryamin cites Capital: “Just how much in the begining the old frm ofthe means of prodtion dominated the new forms i= demonstrated perhaps more aokaagy than anywhere by an expenmenta lorem: that ee teed eae Siecoveryoftadays locomotive, ich had fet toe ae eed up alcmnangly, tke a hone, Only afer frie devloneny at eee, 16 andthe aecumulation af practical expartnce See the bom Reece tly determin by ie mechans prince nd hry empl Sy Emancpated Irom the tradivonal phstal rm ofthe workers that bursts forth mto a machine, oP - Benjamin comments on Marx's observation: “‘Just what forms, now lying concealed within machines, will be determining for our epoch we are only beginning to surmiss.""" Here is the “new nature still in ats mythic stage. Technology, not yet “emanci- pated,” is held back by conventional imag nation that sees the new only as a continuation of the old which has just now become obso-us Parc lete, Benjamin notes: “The conservative tendency in Parisian life: As late as 1867 an entrepreneur ccnceived of a plan to have five tnundred sedan chairs circulating in Pans." Now Benjamin tells us that this formal inadequacy of the nev nature is not synonymous with (but only “corresponds” to) “wish images” which, far from restraining the new within the given forms. reach back to a more distant past in order 1 break from conventional forms. The carly version of the exposé continues: ‘This intermingling owes ts fantastic character above all tothe fact that un the course of soca! development, the ald never set sel off sharply from é new; eather, the later, string tose tse apart om the reer outmoded, renews archaic, ur-temporal cloments. The utopian images hac accompany the emergence of the new always concurrently teach ack to.the ur-past. In the dream in which every epoch sces in amages before ts eves the one that follows it, the imagss appear wedded to elements of trhistory.2" "eis necessary to make a distinction: In nature, the nev is mythic. because its potential i not yet realizes in consciousness, the ld is, myth, because its desires never were fulfilled. Paradoxically, col- lective imagination mobilizes its pewers for a revolutionary break irom the recent past by evoking a cultural memory reservoir of myths and utopian symbois from a more distant ur-past. The “col- lective wish images” are nothing els but this. Sparked by the ness, from which they “maintain their inpulse,"™ dey envision sts re- volutionary potential by conjuring ep archate images of the colle: tive “wish for social utopia. Utopian imagination thus cuts across che continuum of technology's historical development asthe poss! |, bility of revolutionary ruprace (display G). This means that each | of the “corresponding” elements—mytiie mature and. mythic | consrinusness-—works to liberate the other from myth. “Wish im- ages” emerge at the point where they intersect. ‘Benjamin is not maintaining thatthe contents of past myths.pro vide a blueprint for the future. To telieve that they could is pursly utopian. Nowhere in his writings do the ur-images have a status ‘other than that of dream symbol. They provide the motivation for future emancipation, which will not be literally a restoration of the past, but will be based on new forms that we are only begining to surmise.” “Every epoch dreams the one that follows it”—as the rear form of the future, not its reality. The representations of the 7, 5 Mythic Natures Wish Image Dispaye ‘ ' wah mages als i eps when datedally medioted by the acral none aon the collective dream. The imas be eae pear igeS are thus less pre-visions of postre- Wish images “innervate” the “technical 0 f th ‘echuical o-gan of the collective,” trial and technological forms which have just come into existence, | collectve wish ages imbue dhe merely new with radial poles | Meaning, iscribing visibly on the products of the \ Production an u i Prove navi raprestntation o what ih: human, sea ease Ing of technological change is all about. Thus it is ol the u illed the ur-old wish symbol of leisure and plenty | c J with newue Pare life," and that utopian socialists generally resurrected images of an originary Golden Age: “Yes, wien the entire world, from Pars to China, O divine SaintSimon, will come to embrace your doctrine, then must the Golden Age return in all its brilliatce, the ners will low with tea and chocolate; sheep fully roasted will gambol on the plain, and pike cooked in butier will navigate the Seine; steamed spinach will spring (rom the ground with a border of croutons. The trees will bear stewed apples; and grain will grow m bales ready to harvest it will snow wine, will rain chickens, and ducks will drop from the sky sith a garnish of wxmips."" Such visions are proof of the “too early” stage"! of both technology ‘and imagination. Their fantasuc forms are “the most authentic wit ness" of “just how caught in a dream technological production was in its beginnings. At the same dime, however, they tell us that utopian desires have been attached to the new nature from the stazt Insofar as their image traces have been lost an history, 11s politically necessary to redeem them.3 When Benjamin states that these images “pertain” to 2 “classless society,” 1 is because the fairy-tale quality of the wish for Lappiness that they express pre- supposes an end to material scarsity and exploitative labor that form the structural core of societies based on class domination. The carly version of the exposé passage concludes: tis not because of being consciously garbled by the ideology of une ruling class thac the reflecuons af the substructure withm the superstructure are inadequate, but because the new, in erder to shape sel visually, always ‘connects its elements with those pertaining (oa classless society. The col Tective unconscious has more ofa shate init than the consciousness of the collective, Out of ft come the images of utopia that have lef tseir traces behind them in a thousand configurations of life from buildings t fashions." In the begmning of an cra, there is an intuitive, “too-early” {apprehension of the future, The residues of past cultural creations bear witness to it. But if the anticipatory wish symbols that leave their traces on these creations have remained “unconscious,” this is another way of saying the collective is not even aware that it 1s dreaming—with the inevitable result that symbol turns into feush, and technology, the means for realizing human dreams, is mistaket for their actualization, Commodity fetishes and dream feushes b come indisunguishable. When processed food appears on the shelf ug. 5M 53 F “aman Happs fr shea nthe Foun wtopia"—Granie,120 Par asifichad dropped from a Sain-Simonian sky, commodities begin their “theological capers," ths wish images become a phantas- magoria, and dream turns into delusion, When mass media are teen a5 themselves the democranzation of culture, distributed 35 ‘miraculously as Chris's muluplyng food, they too become fetishes. “The tremendous power of the new technology has remained in tne hands of the ruling cass that wields as a force of domination, while privately appropnauing the wealth i produces, In this con: text, dream symbols are the fetishized desires that advertise com tmodies. And the collective goes on sleeping. But should i awaken, {hz utopian symbols can be redesmed as a manifestation of truth, ssenal to this truth is us wanstorines. The wish symbols, signe ‘posts in alperiod of transition, can inspire the refunctioning of the few nature so that 1 satsies material needs and desires that are the source ofthe dream inthe fit place. Wish images do not liber- {ate humanity directly. But they are vital w the proces. 3 se x aden a ven go res wh a tee upon te world singe, extends nid or imagnatn far beyond el its, an riseabes ie fr te itcren of humanity 1o general, THs iusion forme that eich Fourier call the tone of every htortcl yeh The technological capacity to produce must be mediates, by the uiogian capacity to dream—and vice versa. Was Benjamin presume dng an autonomy of the imagination incompatible with historical materialism? Adorno thought s0. He would not have considered the transicney of collective wish symbols sulficient cause for their re- dlesiption. Ukimately he saw no sstinetion between these dream im ages and conventional consciousness in that both were produced within the distorting context of slass society. It was precisely the exposé passage on wish images considered above that so troubled Jum? Tt seemed to eternalize in a most ahistorical way the con- tents of the collective psyelie. Adorno appears to have understood Benjamin as affirming literally Michelet’s idea that every age drcams its successor, as if dream images were dialectieal umages pure and simple, and he protested ra 5 Mythic Nature: Wish Tange L.. .1]f the dialectical image i nothing but .he mode sn which the fetish character 1s conceived within colleeuwe corsciousness, then indeed the Samt-Simonian concepuon of the commodity world might be brought 10 Figin, but ot its reverse side, namely the dialectical image of the iineteenth century as Hel: The image of Hell, central to the “glorious first draft” of the Arcades prajeet, appeared to Adorno w have been repressed in the exposé. The remaining idea of “wish images” was, he claimed, “undialectical,” implying an ‘‘immanem,” almost “developmen: tal” elationsiup to a utopian fuuure:" Against this Adorno insisted: “The fetish character of the cemmodity is not a fact of conscigusness, but dialectic in the eminent sense that it produces consciousness." And he urged: “The concept of the commodity as a fetish must be documented, as is surely your intent, by the man who discovered t"9!—that is, by Marx himself Benjamin's response (via Gretel Karplus) was to agree with “almost all” of Adorno’s reflections, but to elaim that tis concep- tion in the exposé was not dillerent. He had not given up the theme of Hell that figured so essentially in the early notes; rather, these notes and the exposé represented “the thesis and antithesis of the work."8? That Adorno remained unconvinced, given the exposes clusive wording, is not surprising. Yer the Patsagen-IVerk material substantiates Henjammn’s claims. Throughout 1t, images of the nineicenth century as Hell figure prominently (as we have seen®!), Benjamin jad worked through the relevant passages of Capital on ~ commodity fetishism.% Where the exposé spoke of the new as “in- termingied with the old,” Adorno said that he missed the inverse argument, that “the newest, as mere appearance and phantasm: sorta, is itself the oldest.” But Benjamin's sil-central conception of “natural history” made precisely this point. Their disagree ‘ment was i fact limited to their evaluation of the collective's uto- plan desire (and hence the degree to which mass eulture could be redeemed). Benjamin affirmed this desire as a transitory moment m 2 process of cultural transition. Adorno dismissed it as irredeer- ably ideological. In denying the autonomy of collective desire, he clearly believed his position to be the more rigorous from a dialec- tical materialist standpoint, Yet the argument lies close at hand that on this issue Benjamin was in faet in accord with Marx's own ereeptions, In several texts, most explicitly in the 18th Brumavre of| Par fd Lous Bonaparte, it was Mars who, well before Benjamin, observed, the crucial role played by images that conjured up the symbols and myths of antiquity at times of radical historical rupture. Marx wrote: ‘And just when [human beings} secm engaged i revolutionizing them- Selves and objects, in creating something that has never existed before, \| precisely in suen epochs of revotutionary crisis they ansiousty conjure up V to thesr service the spirits of the pastand borrow from them names, battle slogans and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this ume-honored disguise and ths borrowed language. Thus Luther sware the mask of the Apostle Paul, the revolution of 1789 to 1819 draped self alternately as the Reman Republic and the Roman Empire 7 Marx goes on to criticize the bourgeois “revolutionaries” of 1848, ‘whose citings of the past were no more than parodic reciungs in ja farcical attempt to repeat dhe Revolution of 1789. He attributes the nineteenth-century predilection for ancient Rome to the bourgeoisie’s need for “self deception,” in order to “hide from themselves” the class limitations of the “content of their strug- gies.""" At the same time, Marx recognizes that such historical masks are capable not only of concealing, but also of glorifiing the very ngwness of the present historical drama, and chat this ean serve a progressive purpose so long asthe mashing 1s temporary ‘Thus at another siage of development, a century earlicr. Cromwell and the English people borrowed the language, passions snd illusions of the Old Testament for their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal was reached, when the bourgeois tasformation of English society vas accomplished, Lacke displaced Habakkuk ‘The awakening of the dead in the ease ofthis revolution served to glor- ify new struggles rather than parody old ones, 10 amplify the present task in the imagination, not ro take fight from achieving 1 un reality, 10 redis- sever die spat of revolution, Hot fo sake ne ghost walk about sgn Marx warns that “the soeial revolution of the nineteenth eentu feannot ereate its poetry out of the past, but only from the Future. Fer he does not assume that the new "poetry" will be produced ex Inihilo by the working class as soon as bourgeois ideological hege- mony is overthrown. He compares the process to learning a new language: Ics like the beginner (who. .} always transhites binck anta the mother tonguc, but appropriates the spirit othe new language and becomes cap- Ws 5 Mythic Nature: Wish Image able of producmg freely within 1 only by moving about in wt without re calling the old [8 Surely Benjamin means nothing else when, in considering the in- adequacies of collective consciousness vis-a-vis the new technology, he asks: When and how will the worlds of form that have arisen in mechanics, in film, mache construction and the new physics, and that have over- powered us without our being aware of it, make what 1s natural in them lear to us? When will the condition af society be reached in which these forms oF those that have arisen fram them open themselves up to us as sratural forms2s? So close is Benjamin to Marx's own forraulation that the fact these passages are missing from the Passagen-IVerk material must come as a surprise. Benjamin includes other passages Irom 18th Brumaire,! while leaving this discussion (which occurs at the very beginning of ‘Marx's text) unacknowledged. That the omission was accidental is unlikely. Rather, it suggests Benjarun realized that although his arguments paralleled those of Mars, they did not coincide, Marx was concerned with the moment of political revolution; Benjamin “was concerned with the transition to soc lism that comes after i In 14th Bromaire, Marx wrote that socialist society “cannot begin ‘self until ic has shed all superstition 1 regard to the past hhas “let the dead bury the dead.” But he left unexplained just hhow this shedding of the past was to be achieved. The result is a gap in Marx’s theory which, whether or not he intended it t0 be, as been bridged by an implicit auth in historical progress, eco- nomically determmed, as if once socialist production relations were established, industrial-technological production would itself gener- ate the socialist rmagmation eapable of producing a brand new cule ture. Benjamin's trip to Moscow had convinced him that seizing political power and nationalizing the economy, while the precondi- tons for soctalist transformation, were not its guarantee, and that so Jong as the Soviet government repressed cultural innovation, the politcal revolution itself was m danger of being lost. If his 1935 exposé put forth the notion that socialist culture would need to be constructed out of the embryonic, stillinadequate forms that preexisted in captialism, st was in the Arswork essay composed the same year that Benjamin articulated a full-blown theory of theme Pari superstructure Whereas Marx had discovered in he capitalist fconomic base not ony the creation of conditions shich would iad to increasing exploitation of the proletariat but also those “that would make 4 possible to abolish capitalism ise.” Benjamin Brgued char within the superstrucure there was a separate (and Felatvely autonomous) dialectical process, “no esp noticeable [.. } eran in che economy,” bur proceeding “far more slowly.’ Te is dis dialectic thae makes posibe she ranaition to a socialist society It plays itzelf out between te collective imagination and the produetive potental ofthe iéw nature that human beings have brought into. being, but do not yet consciously comprehend Moreover, this dialectic has developed at by “burying” the dead past, but by revitalizing i. Fr ifanure history és not determined Band thus forms are still unknown, iTeonsciousness cannot trans end the horizons ofits sociohstrical context, then where ele bu wo the dead past can imagination umm inorder wo conceptualize a world that is "notyet"? Moreover, such a move ill satisfies a utopian wish: the dese (maniested a the religous myth of awakening the dead) “wo make (past) sulfenng into something incomplete," to make goad an unfulilled past that has been ir retrievably lost “The socialist ransformation ofthe superstructure, which begins within capitalism under dhe impact of industil technology, cludes redeeming the past, in a process that is tenuous, under ‘ined, and largely unconscious. As a result of the distortions of rents ofthis process are not easily discerned. One of dhe asks that Benjamin believed to be his own inthe Pauoger WP was to make both tendencies of the process visible retrospectively, He traces their orgie tothe forsefeld berwoon art and terialngy, which in the nineteenth century became falsely perceived as oppositional camps, with the result that even atiempts to reconcile them pro- duced reactionary cultural forms. 4 ‘The relationship between art and technology is a central theme im the Passagen-IVerk, ‘The 1935 oxposé presents this relationship in & programmatic way,” oudmng specifically the impact in 5 Mvthic Nawure: Wish Image the mineicenth century of photography on art, engineering on architecture, and mass journalism on literary production.”! The re- sult 1s an orginal contribucion co Marxist theory, suggesting not merely the ground for a materialist aestactics and! sociology af art (although both are implied). It identifies a structural transforma- tion 1m the relationship of consciousness to reality—specifically, fantasy to productive lorces—that has general theoretical signi: cance, and that 1s capable of informing :very sort of critical cultu ral practice. It could be said that for Benjamin progressive cultural practice entails bringing both technology and imagination out of their mythic dream states, through making conscious the collec- tive’s desire for social utopia, and the potential of the new nature to achieve it by translating that desire ito the “new language” ofits ‘material forms. Benjamin writes that in the nineteenth century, the development of the technical forces of production “emancipated the creative forms (Gestaltungsfomen) from act, just as im the sixteenth century the sciences liberated themselves from philosophy." This is quite an extraordinary claim. It implies that, Just as reason (“the sciences"), once having become secularized (“liberated from philosophy”), beeame free to be applied in- strumentally to processes of social production, so imagination, in- spired by “the creative forms’. of technology aid diverted fom purely aestheuc goals (that 1s. “emancipated from art”), canbe. applied to the task of constructing a new basis for collective social life, Previously, bourgeois art had appropriated the imaginative dis- covery of new forms as its own terrain, defined by the very fact ofits separation from social reality, Following Adorno, one can argue that this separation was beneficial, sustaining a power of imagina- tion that, because it was able to resise the given state oft the source ofthe utopian impulge mein To bourgeos art, On one level, Benjamin surely would not disagree. Yet he would ina that the “autonomy of art” becomes a hollow piace tn light of the tremendous creativity of industrial procuetion which ell cons stantly revolutionizesrcaiy’s material forms, In an. argument absolutely dependent on Marssttheorcical claims (yet without precedent in Mars’s own theory of the caltural superstructure), Benamin was suggesting that the objective (and progressive) | tendency of industrials ito fase art an technology, fantasy and tePeril junction, meaningful symbol and useful rool, and that this fusion 8, deed, the very essence of socialist culture. Telis important-to “emphasize shat Benjamin understood the synthesis of technology and art as a stguctural tendency, not Synonymous with history's actual course. Tn fit the msneweenth centyey witnessed an insustionalization ofthe spit between tech nology and art to a degree previously unknown in history. ‘This gplit was strikingly manifested in the establishment (in 1794) of {Beale pbyecinue as separate from, anc moreover in rivalry wih, PBeole des beaux ars. The former trained builders and “engineers” for the construction of industrial edifices, naval ships and military fortifications.” The latter trained artists and “decorators,” whose work was valued precisely because it refused to subject aesthetic | Imagination to functional purpose.” In this split, architecture fell to [cole des beeus arts, a fact thal “worked to its dearrment.2 | Previously, architecture had included the science of engineering.® \Ofall the arts had been °[. ..] the earliest to grow away from \the concept of art, or better said, [...] it least tolerated the view that it was art,” a view which the nineteenth century forced upon the products of intellectual actiity to a degree previously un- imagined, yet with no more justification than before.” \ ‘The architectural style of the Paris arcades was emblematic of the warring tendencies of enginecring and “art.” Demanding the Skill of both 1 was recognized by nether Erie as an objeet worthy Of instruction? On the one hand, the continuous glass roofs that became their hallmark in the 1820s were technologically advanced skvlighting constructions; on the other, the mterior “walls” oftheir shop galleries were the most denwative ornamental facades, repleie with neoelassical columns, arches, and pediments that were the Cpitome of arehitcceural "good taute.” A dialectical images, the Jareddes thus had a “hermaphroditic position,”* fusing the J two tendencies which elsewliete developed in tocal, and hostile, { isolation Tt was the engineers who, together with workers, gave shape ro the “new” nature of industrial forms: railroads," machines, and bridges. Benjamin cites Sigtrid Giedion: “It should be noted that the marvelous aspects which the new construction out of iron alflorded the cities {...] fora long ume were accessible 9 workers and engineers exclusively." Svaring Giedion’s enthusiasm for a 5 Nvihie 54 one Transhordcur, Mars, bil 1903 style” of the artic which he connects wath “boredon™) to Getion’s “exotiont examples” of bridge calling. Refereing to ee (igure Sl), he wrtes the word: "Maris For who ale bu ee eae eee Se ees structions, the fetng of space?" Throughout the ninetoroth century, the “ine arc of archi tccure defensively held elf back tron engineering innovations "Those whose aesthetic conscience was paruulrlygensive hurled out from the altar of art curse alter curse upon the build- * ing engineers" The accepted ninetenth-oentury architectural ee century ancient Greckarhitestre agin blared in tea puny” ie least 0 ¢ appeared to what Benjamin call the "valar com, serousness” of the tine® When iron war used for sealing, 1 ‘was given a “stone covering” so that it was visible only from the ||55 Mam Resing Room, Binhique Noval. bt by Hen Laos, 168 6p) 56 Avene de Fp laces cove ta wy 15 Mythic Navure: Wish Tnage sntetior (igure 5.5), or wed only fr dscornve ete. “ene erie succes the omamental use af ron in the construction of the Bibliotheque. Sante-Conevive [1B5ts) andthe Bibliowtque Nationale (19605]""" On exten facades {igure 5.6), iron was eee ee eerie ton othe new pot fr vray stag he enon | “The sensitwines of farchiteeis| demanded that the ever-stronger hori- zontal tendency of the house. come to expression, And the four the means in connechon with the traditional iron balcony. They witcur duced 11 un ane of t4o Moors over the shale width of the front [-.. When house appeared nest co house, these baleuny gratings fused into-one another and strengthened the impression oa street wall |.) Iron, known to humankind since previstory, was rapidly wans- formed from ‘cast iron 1 wrought sron to ingot steel," demon- Strating its “unlimited possibilives.""% Exclamed Benjamin: “Iron as revolutionary building maverialf™ But architects, still trained! an the tradition of Albert, brought to any “artificial” form of iron a ccrtain mistrust precisely because 1 was not immediate- Jy present m nature.’ Moreover, they polemicized agaist the! mathematics of static physics that wes the essential tool of en] guuicers, cluming mathematics was “powerless to assure the solidarity of buildings.""™" \ Ostracized from the dictates of “good taste,” engincerng sub- mitted to the dictates of practical use” "The souree of all arehiteecure out of iron and wlass m the contemporary sense 1s the greenhouse." Such “houses for plants” were the model lor Pax- (on's plan of the Grystal Falace (executzd by engineers rather than architects)!" Subsequent exposition halls imitated Paxton’s de~ sigh, as metaphorical “hothouses” forthe news maciinery.§® It was an buildings for the new mass culture that the principle of iron and silass construction proliferated, at first ““under the banner of purely uutilitanan buildings’: “iron halls” were built as warehouses, ‘workshops, and factories," covered marketplaces (Les Halles) and railroad stations (Garde de Es). As practical, protective shelters for @ mass public, son halls well suited the “need for unbroken space,"”™ because of the expanse such construetion allowed. Ben-130 Parti acted pyramid tanked bronze dragons 527 Camera by Bourg n the shape Pane 1408 Tharsereualetomake the apparatus eave and More o jamin noted that chese buildings were connected with transitorines Jn both the spatial sense (as railroad stations. places of transit) and the temporal one (as galleries for world expesitions, typically torn down afier they closed). Spared the self-conscious mediation of “ari,” such structures setded auto the collecuve smgination an an unconscious form, as buildings for use rather than contemplation—at least for a time. Ulimately, iron and glass construction, having bowed to the ehal- | lenge of architectural style, ssf became one, and began (predict- ably) to think of emulating the past: “By. 1878, 4 was believed that salvation could be found im iron architceture: Its veruieal aspiration "J the preference for over-filled spaces and the lightness of the visibleSkeleton fanned hopes in tae breth of style that would revive the essence of Gothie genius [..]."#* ‘The 1889 Pans Exposition was heralded as the “triumph of sron,""10% Built for it was the Gallery of Machines (dismantled in 1910 “out of artistic sadism’”") and the Eilfel Tower, the iat- ter an “incomparable” monument to the new “heroic age of feehnniney "108 which survived afier the clase of the fatr because of m1 Nivihie Navares Wi i Image 5.8 Photxrpsiof the Inge Galler uf Paumng,Exosion Users, Ba, 155 Hs utility as a tower for wireless transmission.!! Assembled by Aiveting together sectional iron pieces, the Eilfel Tower, for all its Jacelike eifects, employed the same principle of construction as rail road tracks, and anticipated skyserapers direcily.!"9 “Modernism” in architecture had arrived, The Eilfel Tower was an enormous popular success; bur still the “artists” protested: “We come, wnters, painters, sculptors, architects French art and history that eee erection in the very heart of our capital of the needless and monstrous Eifel Tower... qverwhelming with its barinrous mass Nowre Dee che Samnte-Chapelle, the Tour Saint-Jaequcs, all our monuments humiliated all our architectural works diminished"! ‘ 5 ‘The invention of photography, with its sxact rendering of nature, ‘enabled technology to overtake arusts at their own task, and unde: mined the uniqueness, the one-time-only “aura” of the masterpicee by allowing for the mase renravin12 Pont i “The first international exposition at which photography was &x- hibited washed in 1853 m Pans.!#2The invention of photography was prefigured in the 1820s by the dioramas, those ghsscd-n, three-dimensional scenes of figures in a realistic setting which, “by means of technical artifice,” attempted “a perfect amitauon of nature.” eluding the temporal movement of changing davligh, sunsets, oF a rising moon.!" ‘The dioramas mimicked reality so successfully that the pater David urged is students to. make studies of natbire from them. Dioramas (and subsequent cosmor amas, pleoramas, panoramas, and diaphanoramas,""> as well as warcfigure cabinets)" were the “ico early” precursors of photography"? and fi!" just as the arcades (in which they were frequently found) were too eativ antiipations of modem. archi- tecture, “Just as architecture begins 10 outgrow art with ron construction, so painting docs the same through the panoramas.""® ‘Benjamin appreciated the lithogrepher A. J. Wiertz, whose early essay on photography “ascribes to it the philosophical enlighten- ment of painting [| in a political sense” mages become incel tectually refleeuve and thereby “agitauonal.""# Wiertz wrote: "Do not think that daguerreotype fills rt. No, x kills the work of ) pationce: it renders homage to Uie work of thought,"* and he car- vag tha vltimacely “ned this principle over into his own work, be photography and art would work together. With photography, the arust's attempt to replicate nature was made scientific Ic extended the human sense of sight in a way ‘commensurate with Mats’s idea in te 184, "Economic and Philo- sophie Manuseripss” that he human senses in their “true, anthro- pological i.e, social} nacure™” are “nature as it comes to be through industry," even ifsuch nature, due 10 "private proper- “alienated form." ‘Phat the “human yy)" now exists only eye’ perceives dillerencly than the "crude, nonhuman eye’! 1s demonstrated by photography, presenting to aur vision new di coveries about nature, and not merely beautiful images. Frangos Arago, speaking in the 1850s on the place of photography in the history of technology, “prophesizes its scientific application— whereupon the artists [predictably missing the point] begin to debate its arustie value”! Photography secularized che image by bringing it up close. On the photography exhibit of the 1855 Paris Exposition: bs 5a Nawre Wisk Tage "The public crowded mea the exhibitions, standing before countless p lrauts of famous and celebrated personatiies, and one ean imagine what 8 meant in that epack that one could see the fimed personages of the theatre, the podium, in short of public life, at whom inti nov one had only been able wo gaze m wonder Irom a distenee.?™ From the start, photograpiy was part of popular culture, Pon like Nadar expancid its subject matter, ‘aking & hundred expo. sures of P "9 and including all social classes and ranks in his portraiture. The photographie metho { encouraged the practice af amateurs, so thatthe line between arust and public began to blur. Arago reported to he Chamber in 1851 on the effets o the mvention is’ catacombs and sewers, °(.. ‘T]he optcsans’ shops were besieged; tnere were not enough lenses, ‘not enough dark rooms to sausly the zeal of so many cager amateurs, The sun sinking on the horizon was followed with a gage of regret, taking with the raw material of the experiment. But on the following day you could sce great numbers of experimenters at their windaws an the Grst hours of daylight, striving wth every kind of nervous precaution to induce onto the prepared plaques images of the nearby dormer window, or the siew of «| population of chimneys"! Photography democratized the reception 9fvisual images by bring- ing even art masterpieces to a mass audiece.'3! Benjamin believed this democratization of production and reception as well as the non-“auratic,” scientific approach to objects were tendencies 1n- trinsic to the medium," and he considered them progressive.!™ Beeause photography intruded so decisively upon the image pre serve of painters, 1¢ inevitably challenged and changed the way the fatter went about their work, Arago wrote “Whoever has just once im fns life covered bis skin with the magie cloak of photography ind peered into the camera 42 order 10 sce there those wonderful miniature reproductions of natural images must have been struck by the question of what, ndeed,willour modern painting come to once photography has suecceded in fixing eolors just as permanent at now does forms." Defeniders of arusts insisted that it was “impossible for a human countenance 10 be captured by machine.” Yet portraits were precisely the genre most vulnerable to the encroachments of photo- graphy, even if they changed what such portraits recorded: “What makes the first photographs so incomparable 1s perhaps this: thati= 135 Pantl Suances 5 Myihie Nature: Wish Tage they represent the first image of the encounter of machine and hu: rman being.” Artists asserted the superionty of their trade, but their unconscious response was an acknowledgment of vulnerabil- ity. “Apparent symptom of a radical displacement [ Fersckichung) ainting must put up with bong judged by the standard of \ by their power of color but—there was then no action pliotograpliy—by the stormy movement oftheir subjects, Thus it was possible for hum vo be kindly disposed toward photography." | [And subsequently: “As Impressionism gives way to Cubism, paint- ing has created a domain into which photography at the outset cannot follow." ‘Thus painters attempted to defend themselves agamst the new technology. They thereby missed the real threat to their cultural | creativity, te effects of the capitalist market. Already in the early arcades, the window arrangements of commodiues “displayed art in service of the salesman." In the course of his research, Benjamin found a lithograph depicting the beginning of art as advertising [11a painter who makes his way forward with two vard-long, narrow planks, on each of which he has painted several gamishings and arrange rents of meat products. Title: “Misery and the arts.” “Dedicated to Monsicur the Butcher.” Caption: “The man of art within the impedi- } ‘ments of bs trade.” Another showed the proletartanization of artistic production in terms of warker exploitation: Lishograpn: A poor devil fooks on sad as @ young man signs the pietre thar the former has pained, Tile "The arant and the amateur gf the Simeveenth century” Captions "Its by me, sing that sgn 2 * Due to the distorting elects of capitalist social relations, the mass culture in which art and technology converged did so to the detn= | iment of both. On the side of art, production methods began 1 |jresembte those of any commodity: Needing to compete with photo: graphy, artists were forced to speed up production, mimic mecha- | Rear eeiucdan by band, end tan out “individual” portal | £2 Sua phsweraph of We Bema one Gore 5 “Ap with a rapidity that rendered only what was typical about the sub-$36 Pant ject, while the new style of “gente paintings” was based on the ‘concept of repeatability. On the side of photography (which in por- traiture clearly had the competitive edge!) the limitless reprodue- tion of images extended the sphere of market society “enormously, which in turn encouraged “modish variations of camera techn~ ques” in order to increase sales.!" Morcover, the rotrogressive canons of artistic style induced photographers to be more “painter- ly” in their images (Figure 5.9), placing subjects before “pictures que,” backdrops, utilizing props, and retouching and otherwise “embellishing” the image in che nane of aesthetic standards Nowhere were the distorting effecis of capitalism clearer than im the realm of literary production, Here the threat 10 traditional art SAO “Literaare bmg led fa in hanks Granil, 1H 1 5 Muthie Navure: Wish Image forms came fom the technology of rapid printing and fom | the journalistic sie that emerged ithe consquence te fushrooming of mass newspapers. hn The Author as Producer" (1934). Benjamin deseribes the potatiteflect of new Itersy vidual arise genius and completed, selicontained “works re placing the coneept ofthe “masterpict™ with apolitical notion of ‘The water's most important strategie task i less (ofl the new alutionars potential ofthe forms themieves, So lang as the mass peas “sil belongs to capita" however, this task ied ch Dorly clung to, che resulta "elie efwning." a “ebasemen ofthe word.” But in dhe “unseletive” assembling of readers ad fs, and by needing o cater to the "smoldering impauence™ of the teaders who, “excluded, believe tha they have the right to ecaled: The decline of weitng in the bourgeois press proves to be the station of the soealist press (equating it with the actully Fe property “living conions themsives become "iterate," | while the ltter loses relevance as a purely aesthetic form, The Pasogan-Hfrk matenal gives evidence from the ary ears industrial capralism ofboth postive and negative pols of ts alcte as they appear, fll entangled inthe hstoreal phenomena formation of iterary works ino commodities and the ef of pital relations om the production proses. He finds prototypical the production imovations ofthe dramaist Eugene Serine138 er “yyhile he made fon of the great indastniint and mien of money, he Ieared rom ther te see ter sustss, Tt dl nt exeape is sharp Seta eah mesenger hr Sha tus, a pacbeaking genus, he ranfrre te andamencl paneiple Ste stn or the snp of Eon a abn taker, and stcehspring fatones, mio studi forthe dramauiearust, th before this reform, ith one head ad one pen sll only eared th proletarian slay ofan iolted worker" But regardless of salary, the writers within these studio workshops ‘were “proletarian” now in the literal sense of the word, as they hack lost control over the production apparatus. And if salaries of worker-writers rose, Scribe's wealth as the owner of their labor power grew exponentially: Scribe chose the material, he ordered the plot in ts broad outlines, indi- fated the specral elfeets and brilliant exits, and his apprentices set di Togue or small verses thereto. IC they made progress, then naming their hname in the tide (next to that of the firm) was ther adequate payment, lund the best of them became independent and produced works with theie wn hand, perhaps aiso attacking new helpers to themselves, Thus, and Wwith the protection of the French publishing laws, Seribe became a mil- Tionaire several times over. (58 Alexandre Dumas, similarly, was less a novelist than the owner of a “factory of novels"! in which other writers mass produced “his” works. Dumas boasted of producing four hundred novels and thirty-five dramas in twenty years in a process that ‘permitted 8,160 persons to earn a liveliliood.""" “Who knows the titles ofall che books M. Dumas has signed his namte 102 Does he know them himsel? If he doesn’t keep a double register with debits and eredits, he has no doubt forgotten. .. more than one of those ren for whom he 1 the Legal father or natural father, oF godlather, ‘The productions of these last months have not been less than thirty volures."!0) Before mid-century, newspapers were still too expensive to allow for mass readership. Because of the rareness of newspapers, one read them in groups at the calls Others he could be obained only by subserption, which cost 10 francs per year. In 1824 the twelve most widely distributed newspapers had altogether about 56,000 subscriptions. Indecd, the liberals as well as the royalists were interested in keering’ the lower classes away from newspapers.!9 139 5 Mythic Nawwre Tah Tmnage In 1828, journals were first brought within the grasp of the lower classes, a potentially democratic ehange! that was, however, made possible by precisely that force which began to transform news information into a commodity: paid advertising, At first it was literature itself that was advertised, in the form of unsolicited liverary reviews.'® The next step was to generalize the principle: ‘The thought of using a newspaper insert co advertise not only books but ‘ndustrnal produets, was that of a certain Dr. Veron, who did so well thus way with his ale de Regnauld, a cold medicine, that on an investment (f 17,000 francs he received a return af 100,000." Along with advertising inserts and single issue sales, the editor Emile de Giradin introduced the “feulleton," a special section in mass newspapers for literature and reviews in which novels appeared serially prior to their publication as books." ‘This for- ‘mat, along with the literary periodicals and reviews that prolifer ated by mid-century," had significant repereussions on literary form, resulting in essay treatments, shott stories, or serial novels, Under capitalist relations, style adapted to the exigencies of the medium: “There were feuilleton honoraria of up to 2 francs per line. Many authors wrote just dialogue as much as possible, in ‘order to make money on the partially empty tines.” The new mass readership drew authors into national politics as \well.!® Benjamin searches out the origins ofthis phenomenon, uni- que in our own era, whereby cultural producers, as popular enter- tainers, became mass politievans (Lamarine, Chateaubriand, Sue, Hugo, not always (or indeed not usually) with the most enlight- ened results, The philosophical iécalism!® entrenched in bourgeois literature carried over into political postions. Batzac “deplored the downfall of the Bourbons, which signified to him the inse af the arts,'""71 and advocated peasant “socialism” along the fines of a reestablished feudalism." Chateaubriand made the political stanee of “vague sadness’” a fashion.!” Lamartine exhorted patriotism over socialism," employing his poetic rhetoric for nationalist glorification “as if he had made it his job,” so one contemporary criticized him, “to prove the truth of Plato's state- ‘ment that pocts should be thrown out of the Republic [.. ..”"8 ‘Those authors first im a position to speak to the masses did not speak for the masses,!™ at least not in a way that would make it40 , Peat possible for them to understand their objective historical situation, because as writers, they did not understand their own. Victor Hugo, whose fiction documented accurately the sullering of the urban poor, "7? is exemplary. Although in November 1848, Hugo cast his vote against General Cavigrae’s repression of the workers June revolt," he subsequently voted “consistently with the ight” ave his “enthusiastic endorsement” to Louis Napoleon as presidential candidate, hoping (in vain) to become the later's Minister of Education," Equating words themselves with revolution,'®? Hugo exemplified the new significance of litera ture for political propaganda as an aspect of the phantasmagoria of mass politics, His unreliable politcal judgment was not unique among writers. Balzae, an opponent of the breakup of landed cstates, saw no ather cure for petty-bourgeois hoarding than the contradictory position of turning them into small landholders," Alexandre Dumas was offered money by the government in 1846 10 go to Algiers and write a book tha: would spread among iis five million French readers ‘a taste for colonizavon.’*"" Lamartine, moved to provide the masses with the rhetoric of “a single idea,’ “a conviction’ around which they could rally,"® placed his literary skills at the services of the state, The cognitive strength of these writers was limited to describing social appearances, not uncover ing the social tendencies that underlay them, and that were affect ing their own conditions of production sa deeply ‘One has only to regard the forma: of a nineteenth-century news paper (figure 9.11), in which the feuilleton occupied the bottom quarter of the front page, to sec, literally, how thin was the line between political fact and literary ficuon. News stories were literary constructions; feuilleton novelists used news stories as content. The tendency of maas media is to render the distinetion between art and politics meaningless. Benjamin was vitally concerned with what happens when the two realms merge, as he believed they were bound to, due to the “[. ] massive melung-dewn process of liter ary forms, a process in which many of the oppositions in which we hhave been accustomed to think may lose their relevance." At issue is mot whether the line is crossed, but how. Benjamin sees wo possibilities: Either (as was the case with Lamartine, Hugo, etc.), the new technologies of literary repraduction are used by writers as the means for a rhetorical representation of reality chat slips mo Mt 3 Mythic Nature: Wish Imave it Journa uortntes Le. Pet ii EE ae12 Pail elncal propaganda,” o, by focusing on these new technological forme themselves, writers begin to iluminate Boch cir emanps- tory potential, and the pla! reales that presenly store their tfc The ehece is between swaying the publi or educating benween polical manipulation or echnical awareness, The later politicizes not so much through an elaboration of the deficiencies in the present soul order as through demonstra that this order constrains the means that alread exe eo ret them Buc inthe nineteenth century, arts and writes generally di not understand the posive potencal ef the new technologies Fr Cultural production any more cleary than they did the dangers of using these technologies fo atstheuetze mass politics, Balaae pro- vspapers as "deadly to the existence of modern Cetera" Gautier (lke Blane, a monarchist) praited Chares Te suppression of the press, claiming that i "rendered a great, “Newspapers are ofthe species of eosrties or horse dealers who inter pone themsles eesn tari ne publ teen ching a the’ people the perpetal barking. hurls auch mistrust. .an the tnd tat, toyal ad poetry, he vo grande thugs sn the Woe, tecome imposible Architects, as we have seen, distrus.ed mathematics. But engineers were no more clairvoyant, coming only “slowly” to “new methods of fabrication.” And if arusts preached ‘art for art's sake,” and, scorning the new technology, insisted: “‘A drama is not a railroad"! it was albo true “thatthe very Arago who reported the famous positive evaluation of {photography}, reported in the same year [. ..] a negative evaluation of the railroad construction planned by the government.""™! (‘Among other arguments, the difference in temperature at the entrance and exits to the tunnels ‘would, it was said, lead to fatal heat and chills”) But was the “progressive” alternative simply’ to make an art object of railroads themselves? ‘Theatre du Luxembourg, 30 December 1837: "A locomotive wth ‘several elegant wagons" appears on the stage." us. 5 Mvthic Nature: Wah Image The images of nineteenth-century architecture and engineering, painting and photography, literature and journalism were a tangle of both anticipatory and fettering elements. It was not surprising that am the darkness of the lived moment, neither artist nor cechnician was able to differentiate clearly between (xe two. Granted, technol ogy was inherently progressive, promising socialist forms of living and culture; but s0 long as its development was appropriated for | the purposes of capitalism and the state, it produced only reified | dream images of that promise, a phantasmagoria of the “new na | ture." Similarly, even ifthe industrial reproduction of artistic and | -literary forms was inherently democratic, so long as, under com-| modity production, culture was produced as manipulation rather than enlightenment, fostering passive consumption rather than active collaboration, the democratic potential of mass culture remained unrealized Neither technician nor artist was 1o be alirmed unequivocably Both, lacking control over the means of production," submitted to the demands of the market and thereby nelped to perpetuate the nonidentity between social utility and capitalist profitability, As Producers of strategic beautification or cf patriotic oration, both served the nterests of political reacuion.!" Both were caught up in the dream-siaic of technology. At the same time, bot managed to express progressive elements in their wort in spite oft. Benjamin concludes: “The attempt to draw out a systematic conftontation between art and photography must fail rae, as was the ease in other areas of cultural production, i could best be understood as "a moment in the confrontation between art and technology which history has produced"! but which “Instory” would wut autor ‘matically resolve: The Mele des beaux arts and Ecole polyecnique were not the thesis and antithesis of a historizal process. The rivalry between them was a symptom of that process, not itself the dialec- tical working out ofits contradictions. Technology vas a challenge {0 art; forces of production were in eontradiction with relations of” Production. But these two facts could not be neatly superimposed 50 that the terms ofthe former lined up unequivocably on the sides of progress and reaction, “Moreover, given the present mode of production, all “syntheses”rs Part between art and technology were premature. Within Benjamin's intellectual landscape shy belonged tothe antcptiory realm of reams, The sheltering arcndes were the first modern arcatcture jor the publie, But they were ako the first consumer "dream Houses?” placed at the service of commodity worship. In the dans threatened t ouuseip the capacity of art to adapt use them, averting became the menns of reestablishing ik betwecn tceinology'sfores and socal desves: "The adverusement he CGnming eit which the dream imposed itl upon industry.” At the same ume, the development of advertising was symptomatic of the tanaforpaion of information im propaganda, vo drat n com mercial ar hntay onl "prepares tel to become socially "prac- teal" in a poste sense Simary, before photography. can obtain 2 “revolutionary use-value,” the photographer must "es ac the image from "ae fashions of commerce,” with the proper caption." Inthe feileton, writers find thei gil place as com Imunicators (0.2 mass audienee and as commentators on everyday Iie but the commercial genres oftheir iterature—physiognomics br ihe crow, pauoramas of the boulevard, the reverie of the flaneur—teansform reality into an objet that ean be consumed ‘passively, pleasurably, and directly in its dream form,” rather {han "refanetioning” the communication apparatus into a (oo that well make t possible to wakeup from the dream, Given the ambivae Tenee ofthe phenomena, these artworks that eschewed the ew s0- Gil pressures and exposed the doctrine of Ud pour Pat were as | uch vo be redeemed as, or diferent reasons, the tendeney of tack \ ing acaetie "masks" onto the new forms, ‘The ater were warming figos that fanasy's new social uselulnes did not make ts wopian i short the Lguidation of tedional se would remain premature, 30 long as it utopian promise was Tet unrealized Tree situation had been simple fart and technology hed been the opposing poles of ahistorical dialeee within the supersruc- tur, then there would have been nothing easier than their “synthe Si The ew are wou merge aha pros of asteig technology, or conversely, of proclaiming technology a8 art, Both these forms were attempted inthe carly twentieth century, the Frat by Jugend, which strove to reiew art rom he "form-teasures of 5 Myiiie Nature: Wish Tinage technology""* and co “stylize” them “ornamentally’”2 as natural symbols; the second by Futurism which, pronouncing technology beautiful, wished to raise it 0 an art form in itself. Benjamin criti ‘azes them on the same grounds: “The reactionary attempt to release technologically determined forms from their functional contexts and to reify them as natural constants—i.c., to stylize them—oecurred similarly in Jugendstil and lacer in Futurism," Despite Adorno's reservations, Benjamin’s theory of mass cul? ture did provide criteria for a entique of cultural production under capitalism, But it also identified now in spite of these conditions, socialist smagination could come—indeesi, was coming into being, The cultural transformation which Benjamin was investigating is not to be thought of simply as a new aesthetic style. It involves ‘gwing up the ingrained habat of thinking in terms of the subjective fantasy of art versus the objective material forms of reality. The diaiectic which was “no less visible” in the superstructure than in the substructure would transform the very way these two socie- {al components were related. The binary of substructure and superstructure would itself be drawn into the “melting-down process." 8 Recall thatthe collecuve fantasy released at the beginning of the new era of industrialist reaches back tan urspast. Ia the tem, poral dimension, images of the ancient, mythie origins of Western ewiliztion become prominent (one manifestation of which is neo. classicism). Matenliy, the technologically produced "new" nature appears in the fantastic form of the dd, orgame nature. ‘The Pessagen eh gives repeated Gocumentat on OF How te modernity that was emerging inthe nineteenth century evoked both of these realms, in what might seem to be a colecive expression of nosta- gia for the past andthe outmoded. But Benjamin leads us to under. Stand a diferent motivation. On the one band, iis an “attempt to master the new experiences of the city” end of technology “in the frame ofthe ola, tradtvonal ones of mature” and of myth: On the other hand, its the distorted form of the dream “wish,” whic is not to redeem the past, but 1 redeem the desire for utopia to which humanity has persistently given expression, ‘This utopia is none |ae 46. Pan it oxher than the communist goal stad by Marxin the 184 “Econom- ea Philosophie Manusenpis"™ the harmomous reconelia thon ofsubjeet and object through the humanizaton of ature and the naturalization of humanity, end isin fat an urisorical | nod in both Bibleal and. classeal myth. Greck antiquity, wo | heaven-on-earth in reality, achieved such a reconciliation symboli Cally n ne cultural forme,"To replicate these forms, however, as if some "truth” were eternally presen within them, denies the histo- teal parucularly which is essenta to all truth. Rather, the ur _ optan themes are tobe rediscovered not merclysrmbolially, a8 “aesthetic ornamentation, but actually, in mattcr’s most modern configurations. Tr wal dhe new cchnological ature that human beings must be recone, Thies the goal of weialist culture and the meaning ef Berjamin’s question, already eked When and how will the worlds of form that have arsen in mechames, in film, machine construction and the new physics, and that have over: powered us without our being aveare oft, make what 1 natural in thers Elear to us? When will the condition of society be reached in which these forms of those that have arisen from them open themselves up (0 Us as natural forms? [The paradox is that precisely by giving up nostalgic mimicking of the past and paying strict attention to the new nature, the ure Images are reanimated. Such is she logic of historical images, in which collective wish images are negated, surpassed, and at the same time dialectically redeemed. This foie does not form a di cursive system im a Hegelian sense. ‘The moment of sublation re~ ‘veals itself visually, 1m an instantancous flash" wherein the old 1s illuminated precisely at the moment of its disappearance. This flet~ ing image of truth “is not a process of exposure which destroys the secret, but a revelation which does itjustice."2"! 9 Can such a cognitive experience (which, literally, educates our im- agination, leading it out of its still mythic stage) be illustraced in the context of the present discussion? By way of conclusion, here are two such attempts, demonstrating both the moment of critical negation in the dialectics of seaing that exposes the ideology of 7. 5 Mvihie Navure: Wish Tinaye bourgeois culture, and the moment of redemption, as a fleeting re- velation of truth, The first illustration, constructed out of extremes of archaic and modern, makes visible :he dilflerence between the repetition of the past and its redempticn. In the second, the new nature flashes together with the old 1n an anticipatory image of humanity and nature reconciled Archaie/Modern Not only architectural tastes were dom:nated by neoclassical acs- thetics in the nineseenth century. Bourgeois theater enthusiastically ‘estaged the ancient. Greck tragediéa, defining “classics” as those ‘works, the truth of which was untouchad by historical passing, In tthe genre of caricature (more receptive to the new technologies of lithographic reproduction due to ts lower status as an artform) the artist Honoré Daumier produced images of his own class" swnich, in making the bourgeois subject their olject, lent to his visual rep- Fesentations “a sort of philosophical eperation.""") His humor provided the eritical distance necessary to recognize the pretentions of the bourgeois cloak of anciquity.2!* Daumer showed neoclassi- casm to be not the recurrence of an ctemally valid form, but a peculiarly bourgeois stvle of historica, distortion. He depicted | the bourgeoisie depicimg antiquity, in a way that articulated the | former's transiency, not the latter's permanence (figures 5.12 and! 5.15): Baudelaire suggested as the motto for a book by Daumier on ancient history: “Who will deliver us from the Greeks and the Romians?”—and he recognized in this artist 2 fellow modernist because of it. He wrote: Dauner swoops down brutally on antiguit: and mythology and spits on Ana tie impassioned Achille, the prudem Uvest, the wise Pelee, and that great minny Telemachis, and beaaifel Helen veo loses Troy, and steaming Sappho, patron of hysterics, and wlimately everyone, has been shown to us in'3 comic ugliness tha recalls those ol Carcases of actors of the classe thence who take + pach of sna behind the Daumier's images provide the entical negation of bourgeois classi- ‘ism, But itis to the “dramatic laboratory” of Brecin’s epic theater, cally experimental of contemporary dramatic forms, i18 Pari a2 “Phe Maidens Penton," Honoré Bar ore Baseman Le Claman, 1889p) rm sheeple Ui, 1852 (htm 9. 5 Mythic Nave: Wish Image that we must look for a reanimation of the scenifc power of elassi« cal theater—as Benjamin's defense of Brecht makes clear: [Breeht. | goes back, in a new way, to the theater’s greatest and most Aanciont opportunity: the opportunity (0 expose the present. In the center of his experments is man, The man of tadav; a reduced man therelore, a ‘man kept on ice ina cold world, But since he's the only one we have, 11s 1m our interest to know him. He is subjected to teats and observations [..-] Constructing out of the smallest elements of human behavior that Which in Anstotelian drama is called “action” —thiss the purpose of epic Uheater.26 Similarly, in technological structures, classical form returns, a fact ‘of which Le Corbusier, a founder of architectural modernism, was aware. Benjamin clearly affirmed the new architecture as the (his- torically irasent) form adequate tw the period of transition. He wrote: “In the first third of the last century no one yet had an inkling of how one must build with glass and iron. The problem has Jong since been resolved by hangars andsilos."2” As if to illustrate this point, the plates that accompanied a 1925 edition of Le Corbu- ses collected articles neloded photographs of hangars and sles. Moreover, they justapesed such modern forms to the buildings of antiquity, in order to demonstrate how architects ofthe conterpor- ary era, rather than imitating antiquity mtentionally, take their [| lead from the engineers who, unwittingly, have discovered its forms * anew (figures 5.14-5.17). Benjamin asks rhetorically: “Do not all great triumphs in the area of form corre into existence [...] as technological discoveries?! Old Nature/New Nature ‘The earliest Pasiagen-Ierk notes state that the work of Grandville is to be “compared with the phenomenology of Hegel.”” In fact this graphic artist (whom Surrealists as well as silent filmmakers recog- nized as their precursor) made visible the “ambivalence between the utopian and cynical element” in the bourgeois idealist atiempt to subsume nature under its own, subjective categories, His images depict nature as pure subjectivity in its most specific, bourgeots-histoncal form, that 1s, as commodity. A contemporary of Marx, Grandville’s “cosmology of fashion” portrays nature decked out im the latest styles as so many “specialty items.150 fe Port 5 Mvihie Natore: Wish Tage 5.1Gand 5.17 Dest he Pacihevon (Le Corba) Sutdand 5.15. Contemporary gran cles Le Corbuer152 153 Pari 1 5” Moihie Natare: Wish Image BAB. “Flower1st Pani BAL “Ado thing his mas Grandville “brings well to expression what Marx calls the ‘theo- logical capers’ of commodities,” and, pursuing commodity fetishism “to its exteemes, reveass its nature." In his work the image of humanity reconcited wilh nature is given a eyniea! tis Nature imtates humanity's fetishized forms as “so many parodies by nature on the history of humantv.”## “Grandville's fantasies transfer commodity-character anto the universe. ‘They modernize i222 Comets, planets, flowers, the moon and evening star are animated, only to receive the “human” atwibute of beng trans formed into a commodity (Figures 5.18-3.20) 27 But in depicting the "battle between fashion and nacure,”" Grandville allows na ture to gam the upper hand (figure 3.21). An acuve, rebellious nature rakes its revenge on the hamans who would feuishize it as a commodity (Figure 5.22) The myth of human omnipotence, the belief that human artifice can dommate nature and recreate the world an its nvage, is centval to the ideology of modern domisation. Benjamin names this fane _tasy (wshich is believed with deadly seriousness by whose who wield Technology's poser aver others): “childish.” Grandville depicts xt, when, "God knows, not gently,” he stamps human charactens- ties onto nature, practicing thar “graphic sadism” shich would Is 5 Myihve Notre: Wish Image sa “Tish hing fr pps unig sarees temas bat ™—Granie, IH137 5 Mythic Nature: Wish Image 5.24,5.25,5.26,5.27 Photyraps of plansaso ot Kut Bora, 1998,1s Part I become the “fundamental principle” of the advertising image.2 Grandville’s caricatures mimic the hubris of a humanity so puffed up with its new achievements that it sees itself as the source of all creation and brutally imagines the old nature totally subsumed under its forms (figure 5.23). But this cognitive experience is inverted when the new technique of photographic enlargement (figures 5.24-5.27) shows us with what cumming nature, anticipa.ing the forms of human technology’ hhas been allied with us all along! Photography thereby takes us like “Liliputians” into a land of gigantic and “fraternal” organic plant forms,22" wrote Benjamin in his review of Kar! Blossfeldt’s Urformen der Kunst (Ur-forme of Art) in 1928, Comparing Blossfetdt to Grand~ ville, Benjamin commented: Is it not remarkable that here anther prineiple of advertising, the gigas Uicenlargement of the world of plants 18 now seen to heal the wounds that caricature delivered 01°22 \| Here is a use of technology net to dominate nature but to take off the “veil” that our “laziness” has thrown over the old nature, and | allow us to see in plant existence “a totally unexpected treasure of {{ analogies and forms." Ur-forms of art—yes, granted. Still, what else ean these be but the ur forms of nature?—Forms, that is, tha were never merely a model fora but fom the very beginning, ur-forms at work all hat is ereative?2# 6 Historical Nature: Rui ‘Transitoriness is the key to Benjamin's affirmation of the mythic clement in cultural objects, redeeming the wish-images attached to the transitional, “too-carly” ur-forms of modem technology as momentary anticipations of utopia. But in the process of commod- ification, wish image congeals into fetish; the mytine lays claim to cternity. “Petrified nature” (ersiarrte Natur) characterizes those commodities that comprise the modern phantasmagoria which in turn freezes the history of humanity as if enchanted under a magic spell.! But this fetishized nature, too, is transitory. The other side of mass culture's hellish repetition of “the new” is the mortification cof matter which is fashionable no longer. ‘The gods grow out of date, their idols dismtegra:e, their cult places—the arcades themselves—decay. Benjamin notes that the first electric street- lightmg (1857) “extinguished the irreproachable luminosity in these passages, which were suddenly harder to find (...."? He interprets Zola’s novel Therése Raum, written a decade later, as an account of “the death of the Pans arcades, the process of decay of an architectural style.” Because these decaying structures no longer hold sway over the collective imagination, it is possible to Feeognize them as the illuso-y dream images they always were. Precisely the fact that their original aura has disintegrated makes them invaluable didactically: ‘To cite an observation of Aragor: shat constitutes the hub of the problem: ‘That the Passages are what they are here for us | fir wns} 8 due to the Fact that they an abemselees [an sil are ne longer.*aft 408 Notes w pages 105-110 175, Aguste lagu (2472), cnel Vp 1706, 175, Auguste lang (1721 cwed Vp 17016, Augoste Blan (1872, ene Vp 170 16a, 8. Auguste lange (1472), ene V 174 (D7. D7 179, Vp 488 6282), 1 Vp, $ 6221, ean ls “he sho fel ese ea oh ‘ag decree fete come ie a fen eng f-Eetse raw 748 os Dal IU), Gen Nise hen wen har | Seid cata (aie te ena meen DICT} We aie See hes Bemus ‘Sen dco te ne esr es mets fen i anges Spc of ce een apres te ancora ir mss tredocuon crac omnes Thee af a et teen fecha Il he oct aera ar ton) I sms ot ae ima se Par emus i cares lt fad cose), hat Alas) fey le easy Bike fhe protrtn cher: Bungee wars Thee stern oy ch Case Tuber ns arena ste barr of Rach ticon” Thaw an, Hames thet fateh tine he amp aisha pera pr 0.9 Nessus ter rel camp pets ose et lg the seta, eas Spr aes rea al he mene pov an 9S pt of 12. Vp. 17 (Dts He “Lew the mage ale eternal reurence pores a8 ee tence at dees stp cu of the aa NS, Vp 1286 le aio 1930 espe a. Vp. 100 (6. 1. ¥, pH OF, 16, 388 8.3). 107.9170 (1,5. 5. Mythic Nature: Wish Image 1.¥,p.1212 0835 expose mateo. 5 2p 500 (Mt. 9, |. °Mv ats des hs hist rhe pas 8s mas objet” p 348 [a 2), 4. edn Theor Wiehe 186, td Wp. 115 (8283). 5. 1017 (4, 20, 109 ‘Notes co pages NO=1i 6p Hod, 11 B19, 7. °C er emge Mean bes Houle". "One can describe he phaser ea hank mathe Tha so etiam, nor does ‘Kein sng mchanste trad dss rea compioes Sites eve machine wut of human besnys” (V, p. 772 [14,39 a 8.1055 expe, Vp 10. ¥, pana 7,3, UAV, p. 287, 9, 12, the i he rst ne frm pps as chs |. eam ‘seer characermc of te umes tht adver ta pares sea waste a {ev were capable oheng mate or etry tnd wore ™ Can oe Boas [FTE ee Nep-BRLIFL Ses abu Fu, 2]-Ch:"-Cabwet making m won mals dae meted ee (nied tap ted p21 FSn 20 PV pe 7 3 a 1 HY, p 10H (G28, 15. ¥4 9. 1521024, 16. Vpn 12a 2) HV. p. 262.8, V9. 216 2.0, 19.0 p16 CAM, tebe T5 2B, Yep 88 /AT. 3, BLY p ton Gr ec A lr el aa Hat Mean ma “How ie dvaed ihe ure he rede tac Ducamp 173} ened Vp 21321 25, Sine Gide (1928), ced Vi 25 02, 5, 25. p.497 (2 27 Yo 40-47 (105 expen. Ther are several eras fe expe Tie vernon w AE lth ater een, publsed eV a ie a die 28 Se Blots discus Benn Endbsrane, “Revel der Pileopie™[1828) 9 Eidubyt ser Zot 933}. vl. of Ero Wl Coentaagle Pesan eaeBt 10 ‘Notes to pages 114-118 cat ac ara acne se ote p-1252). 25. sp. 1224-25 (195 expos, SH er Su, Mars, ced Vp 217 (F235) 31, p21 ts, 8, eae tempi tot een ar emer oreenepre inet Felecia nies grin ase Icio preston sme ena shag esac sein Sams wseocve desea ap 291 Fa expen ction ae inthe the 198 espa Bau come pera ‘Someta Saeed Fura and da “Oat htm marie wee Fetnanat wp tat Meso he Spoons of nar toma ieee ch eae suena to prevalent breyten Th ee cnc es aut Notes vo pages 1ST rato feta nn ngs the rls te expo af people by the swmeraf de main fpr ihe anon ef hasan sete ee ie ‘heft ent explain” [Vp esas bos eer Be HN pp 128635 (0 verti fe 105 ex, £3,825 (G1 nthe wenn png om cater Cape which Reman se rm Go Kale, Ke Mae ere ey " #6. Ma a Engels, “Th Huy Pane [1853 pbs 199, cd Vp. 78 7 . 12, Aro secre vera (1 some ws ce rom bath ofthe oes ene here led nos, Vp 1232: but she pusige we are camer ngs he oe Ea ee ‘ern rm the HED expos yp 0} ened shoes 8. tater Adorn co Benjamin 3 August 15, ¥, p12 8, Lever, Adora Bess, 2 August 1985, p12 Leer Adorno w Benga, Aust 195, Vp. 2 Sh eter, Adora Lew, Aus 1985, Vp 11, 82 Letier, Bergin wo Gretel Karplus, 16 Auge 195, Vp 1198 See atv chapter St Thar sages ive aban, we m4) were record im Kent “Cn he eat ‘sui Massey wre bere fn 1895" ed mote Etats ee Bays rected the eter wth Adar’ estar 55.4 ter Adon Benin, Aogist 1935, p 118 58, Sceahove char 3 32, Karl Mary "Der I> rannare des Lots Napali Reaitn 1882), Kad Man fd Fridch Eagle vl ein Dine Cer) “sleet the echt pe it wl haul the wien o 198" A 99 Ake Ih oP BEE Patt unde che Commune come to exresion na Skin ee Pe armolaon, appein w the bogenue’ "Save the people ate youn ae tae Fathers bythe Revtaion™ (Vp. 252 fda 58, Mars, “8+ Bema" p16 60, Mary "18" Braap 16, 1 Mars "10+ Brana,” 15 £2 Xp. 30-01 (Ka 2) of the arene i, 28 whieh has plac of ear on ‘uphitna” The Ka, 2 verion ads "Ot cours: wiih deen oes chan olen thi siows tight ch oni one moment. (Which ane nsddchlsosee aes fe smthess} In ane ete thre ewes rare heseoH 4 Notes w pages 125 te hat ae ain 1 tcp tems i ane es 451634 YP, $74, ed wo gud ee a a om ea aon arr ons nt pase ee Cngeal e Phin Rake 3H (Na. 11, Maes" Bega.” po ecune tchsst ing Phy ice a Yaesu scion eer Nose 1K VES 1, Ano ss He SEAS AE nea tar ean pnt sc tgp Raina rate Bs ema» asec: “L--| as a er eon 2 tr sett aan a” te eae ew hapten someting hands ad that er tte ed ‘otter hte aclipee en edna: bat ection we bane anspor hk iit tame tisha eared Spearman een ‘Sie Beyasin "un sie wee tne coe of aeesne al eit st he ha ae ta ihabe Puget malt i lus st cba ed eh ‘nl tar sa tgs Han PIRI theta fie Pangea tere sg co Bibel hie oe phe we wot bee ee ae Te Ai ar Pes Hepp tte M1 a Tie ook et he Mage Te “Fecal Rear. ps ch tera am snare 21, sept raf eens Krsenie oka Ofna imran en eters Eng me Peng eps ese ee he nie non ct area pr Ye therai It27 A ae aes artes = Msc the Panage. 1 apes to ave ot seit ee sass tein of heme att ee 413 Rotor pages 125-126 mas thea ecialyrepreducd ni. Gratnphane The “Thctrephone isto 8 srr extent vs predecrssr.) Ae et tere was mae wc ote See ee Be esa panuramic mse tha ne nw oa eee hear at eopeabl lesbos ts lk hose lv the Kuopio Sle Cathe porae Fampontone et Bea te sere Hernan (Vp, Sn |, 3. ae an 6 |" jet Rowe sone Dated" and HI. HS Qe bin 72, Beayamim chet considered Mores hor fe supesteuctte mde quarec , BH [Nt 3). sd we afte purpose nthe Pauepnitin was toned Beaks Eek PW, 9 395 expat 1M. Mares thr shat thes ypestactare cts onthe es of pods presumes the diviaon betncen at and teenelege tH aca stant Tues Ue aeteel, teournersphenncina. Teneglet to cae: the psabite [an ar aplicaneetia a vet that fin of cls ben w apart tie ex eases thar sheeeris of ada eapain rs hae nen progeny aadcromes ie 3. The yr “isa wt ued in Form he 19, spied ols raed a "ear mit tes se (p28 8 26, "ie carter of epee, he ents of port theoreti teint wih sce ated coma retest a cl wks tng cmtacoon eaiean Fonts: ning even shiphuiting Nafseon deere ihe tego ne ae "kos ive barracks Ye apse |HABEL Np SPD A, FV 210009, 0 F.C Bale erie jedemens "1 doa ive tata emgues on ‘Ef ete ue wo ever be abet wae Ft ace ahr at Leona fe Gog lowfat re the ter wow a] meanest nese ot ventory of indeaies tees construct of ana Formed at vosee oe ee ed ample uf theorem she psc coming ant w' Lole tne the sane oop a ovament pla appease they br deputing fo al re {he poms wer ae ein (Bans ced ps fe 2 78. Geis (1548, cued Vp. 2175, {The flo ME bat w THU Yih, ameyting the arid, al env glass otighl vere compte cosa em oon and coppers aw eee Belinge se he eee Brann As i oe Lime tbe Be a ie frumeer een grr ete in ne penn (Gon {OBE} aed ns eh 8. Vp 217 630 82 tan Bh Ga Aa: Te Hite Ball Tes, jae 0, Newman anc Johor H. South (Cambridge, Mass,: The MIT Fress, 13), p. 6h. #0.¥, 9 222 (Fr 8,» The mat spurt sp wad dase he aptamer {sci ota eh om wr set on mehaval maaas Ti spes ee ene 8 losin, compinents: br mh aad ise nS ee he ‘unis of sca won, tat te funn bes el ae ea sada serapr es ui" (Sid Gado 8H ened Sp SIG Saaoe au ‘Note ta pages 126-130 15. The es from the Empire of the fist lconanes othe caasommated ne oie toy (Scene) ol tar denies x evan ™ Joseph Noga La 1909}, eed Vip 22 a, 6. Giedion (1928, ced, V,p. 28/73, 3) 9. 188. V,p. 218 (F3, 5). Begum refers specials ns Repratdced let igure 0. 7. ¥.p. 106 0 1-69 of Gino» sons, 18 Jove At Le (100), cued Vp. 22 (Fa, 7). 90. Jourmatis (1837), ed Vp 219 (FBa2) 2 Y p20 Fla (92 Ene Levasseur (18, oud Vp 214 (Fl. 5. Ws p56 1935 exp 94 Pe Sua (192), xed Vp 291 (Ps). 95.A.G. Mever (1007, ted Vp. 219 (BA Meyer (1907), ce Wp 289 (Fa, 97 Sloe (1907), ce Vp. 290 (Fa 4 6 Ph 98, From 3 "muchpubtehed” pote be Pee aie IS, ee VY p28 FB. asoFs 3 99, Benjamin notes that nealing could house ay pure pce Besse Thovsrehectra eve ha meting fo sow au. He oes Vicor Has sete thar the pseader Grek temple Bult a use de Bouse col st swell conan "Mines Palace, House of Commons tall seller ace Ware oars courts muaron. a barrtka tri aterple heater (Hugo eed Vp 27 [fon 1) to cantante pub espoied ws 9 ewspaper quer th hoe te Cv Pacem be ud fe he Lome Exyrat by eugene sng spel pbc btn ox ibenr (sp. 295 Sa.) Bean armen" Bera od me hig the Cvsal Palace coud bead revert ib) On the eta Incaning as ckarscenec of eommakie sant, te chapter oh 104, Meyer (07). ened Wp 2814.1 ay Fa, Whee wa confronted eh the prc fea" nares tre hie ‘ene the done nor Patan seed fea dn (Mlver (10TH, ened Wp 2 Fah 1o2.¥ p16 (FB alo Fa, 2, 105, Mever (1907) ened p22 (4. OL Mever (107), ce Vp 228 (PH, th 105. DubecEapeaet (926. ced V8 (Pl, 3) he “gue” om aie ter berets Eels 1879 rs Esha Hail pee bel apter® gare 7) | | | i oles pages 190-133 06, Pere (15. ced Vp 0 (4 107. Gite V, p. 222 4,6, 108, Vp 108 (Der Suaemring cer ctnat von Eisen) 109. ¥, 9 23 a 6172.8, Gennes (1987), eed Vp 240 (FH, 2) 12. Vp. 426 a4) 113. 625 Va, tho Q2. 7). Theat Panorama of Pais was rete by am Amer {5 Hn the Unidas by the am Fallon Te aed er Senile seaman Les Lave BSH ced pe ceh TOS ap 18 Y, 9.688100, 0) 115, 635 (QR. 16. Wp. 659 (22,2, 12. Vp 639 (G2 5. 9-658 (Qs, 8 ako Q2. 6, 119. p48 11985 esp) Inthe sae ye (1490) that Daguere’s panera own, he made his dsrover of diguerenype (ih ek Qa, 3 Pane bene 120, p. 49 1835 expos 121, When dagucrtotre, tht pt chil wil have aimed the ag of mata wh {2 orc ls once wl have bro evloped th theese oe saa ae bere adler Mes tow! Wear pong gees ‘Wertz 11870), exted V, p. ees es 22 Beem «Anon eat tat ponagraphieproducenirasemed mages ‘Shean ce eet emma The ec fe 8,195), Potarphie mores mantel the ray wf aan ape ee eee sinseat ‘oton, phetoraphi repre Pie mses whic estape natural eno taal ids ee 12, Mara, Ai Mins, ened Vp. 602 (Sta. 124 Nar, Ker Whig cnet Vp 802 (S 3 125, Mary, Ee rans, eed Vp. (ta, 2 126, p9 (1955 exp 127, Gite Freund (19304), en Vy 826 (ta,Bn 416 owes wo pages 138-135 128, p87 22. 19. pa aBT AYR 10, rage cen Fed (190 9). cned Vp 07 D 131 eww deers he “pounrphic pear fan ane phase dh ong Tren magn sa pags p20, 192 Began challenged the denon his ied Ge eu ose 1940 mam erat cnagrph: heen ced niet cin, revs he ps hatgtni s demestetng ioparts"-Pueqrapi. aw adieu the eg sae arrested bier ta a oes Sethe teas Bea excl de "Ths ras shal ye te Scene be reve?” (Vs 820185, Seen ain ew mone wi fol ts Dot nat lie ure acti iat gs se he wah of SpE Sp ro Tan fe ie eh eke 1M, Waler Come 185/96, td Vp BE 2 3. 15, V peas Ota a 196. p. 632. 157. Xp (97, 3, Bengmon exam ana IMD): We wl ee wth thopomafthe ble radmin rth Gis sr wha epee mst it Soren yasmin tht se ould ested wih the pr agueeeoyprs 13a, ¥ 882 a), Act photographs St posh HH, wagurated our sn A. 129, Vp 9 (1955 ex 140, Vp UNIS expt te a empl V pA 141. Caine des Essanges, ibinsique Nant fa.) eel V, p90 7. 112, Cabinet dot Examen ced Wp 98 138. ""1n Slee anand HS, hee wa sw of ro ne ie pers son ates ene hepatic reputation fang ras the eure ears ates cvned ost ug sade» fg. fet sas ae there were sh reise pager, «ack prdaced year ap aver a [00 120 cuver which tev sod 13 rams ve eee TDA anes bt Th rp a Thom cuntnucta mes winner of ce 9a ane cul eon de te {Keclponcn ale lge oer of France” (Nil [S78 ened roam, eel isu 50.2 a7 Notes wo pages 135-190 14. Vp 49 (1859 expo. In “The Ate as Peden” Kenn eres the ft that Dlwrapi "ean vo ager dee a ener ick or» garbage hea isa anaes tg For tae sere emma ve easy tec 9 os bls pected manera objet sensor lp 145, Connerly succes photgrapes uy, acs, nd etwuching, tng te manu pies (6 Vp ADL IVE tf) Dade augue! tat iy seas och pope one ‘su iat hstoncal “gene” pong (ee 3 Wh 6, “etn their ess RS ea sa ped e Lann Tine pss ane 147.1 yp 6-7 TH Pans. bot urganzatin or ‘pers dard a the ee din de Fass ‘Convene Pare [NB cen Nome Bae sgt he pa ral bite. ver at io ne bn ile ha spe eee pests wach wlan aioe” Besoin oda scan Sesh cee wate bh monde tlie tae pee TU ‘Wid ou electoral ain 149. The Author a Prodacer” 1, pe, GH an 66, 150, rework esas I, yp = 151. oak, 132.1 po, 1591, pa 15.1 9. ok 155.11 SL he coma eof Bean’ argument whe a 6) fac 2 setiqucion oie canter pee “ie Zenon” Hepp. h-2h, wh terse pan Te Sapphement or aoa fo Ebdon, vate oe eee ter ee See es ‘xs ie sci pre sal e mh SRAors o tat he emsieved the pee,“ Zenungexeeanel tl ge TI), Benes ‘ver sent Adama "he ath s Pres 156, rad Bea ameoted "We hae prods, we ler hake work ‘odin Cornus [HH ewe Vp 6 alan 3) ‘Bates, 197. Fred Kress (NS), ated Vp 824 (V1, 3 150, French Ries (5), od Vp B85 (YL, 2) 159. “Jacquot de Mimeuur pulses 4 books Ane Damar aud Ga, Fay of Nr (Panss Sy" (Vp. 8 ft ate 160. J, Lcas-Datcun 1928), ene V9, 908 (a, 16d, Paulin Limwrae (5). ee Vp. 90) (4) Non all wes lw this path ko sucess ad somo the must sll eed an sige patron) eam ates te ROG Somme prima of deen wae date cane, Wheres fhe fist senerainn the “pulled sn” were ioe sail bowgeus becgeoals {Gauner de Nel, Housaye) and indlged a sl manemdrmo waa take ee418 ‘Nores to pages 189-159, coment woreanty, “he tue Baemsiny whe ete all a te ements 1B Bsr of Charpieure wa scoar sen all st aon. that of Dries ter fo the fang SMart the ami af Court ae deme pean. Changer and (Chintecul handled packages fora base, Boon wen rai won Marne NOES}, eed Vp 921 fay Hop (Uy fh Hepa spre example of te utonomnsr err war, fears, Uatebir, ender in desl in chaper 162. Vp 7 Wa 163, The fc ha newspapers fie reached working as aus ugh wiles Ache aot aor made of recep he resting ome est er bich were Frequent fond i dhe aed Thev we places nee fru smal fe oe ws pe could ie read ina clleve stun Te eating roma, ht carpe wl heap publications, dete fer 1830 (38 we ends). B69. 75109, 165.9 7 LE, 165. p 134 (018.9, 167. GF, he yea sass oe ours awnehe Vp 77 EH. 16, p. 72510, 1, 169, Henn nots the “connec here evens [Hux 3. fener Le fin Laartne BDU for Lr irda] plea aspen” (Vp 3 ais 1) Soaps! impact atm eed ve electra are Tenneson San famimereste ondary, alma lofi were spp fro the se othe was hears cre on a lrg corspeence i which ae ance ay dao the (Wp. fe.) 170. Exempiftng shi fundamentally ict sine: Vitor Hg se nthe shape Note Damen "Ha the ganic prjeion a his un one eee 993 [13 3. 172 “Steam amet“ wae Fri i of Mle aan pri a psa rea i! demand the reesiblshnet of edie What de sw wom ha bra Sits. Sle. Sond as snes abswne M. Sura cach nowt hi a (Palin Eemavrs (1813), ened ¥. pis Tai shoo, Vp ae fla 173, Albers Malet an P. Geile (19, aie Wp 08 la. 3. 11. J- Lea Daren (1), ated Ve 14, 1 The re ng whieh vo Bang tus is ever de a thing bat our the ‘Champ de Mavs, dragged te lod oe people oh spd ae the er ee 2 toaro he gle sh thease hegre athe Hn ath twa (Lanse, speech tthe Hoel de Vile, 23 Febas 1B, ced Albert Matsa P.Gule (19), Shed Vp 208 [2 175, Fred Saree (1852). exe Vp 904 (a. 2 176, On 6 Apri 1830, Lamarane aur: Rural the eee popula ha “eh health omen sense, sue respect fir the tus and fe pen ak ‘woul beara moreover. the Berges Natal Guaed who grr un Pane a9 Noves wo pages 130-142 Sr ale back othe cy fond who ton das er wer put doin a works Seater et he maa thy ese Sagas ees rea a ae mn erm cme amas 77. "Deenive Cet er Miles a a 4 Mies are ac om ea ocsrrencs” (Vy 95 2 1) Vp. 4,6, 179 Ege Spur eed in E, Meyer (1927), eel W, p91 3). "a0. Vp. 935 (a, 3. UBL. Vp 918, 3), When Hg suequen Napoleon spd owas ec wh a Poses eee Lows ATS is ura Mago psig ates vlunay wind et ple sitime od dcwar: Nome yds ens So mae ee a 8 SN areata of cc cp Pet Bre SY ese ae 2pahtane evan poids -Cas Hage ae eae ha ot tne of th: Notun Aen He ws we pred sek ot genet mist and tow words | (pel see ened Vee ay ea 5. p07 jt J. Lass Dutra (1920, ned Vp 808, 5. Apes de Lamar tn) ewe W987 3). 18} Der Auto al Modzent I, 6 167. GY» 125 a2, 2, tat The Heveamtok tos provides the bie esearch yy Pcaeatral pomoanceen he og he pea ihe cu the Neneh ey tha i sm puns hy poltceng wt" (Atwoek eae per of Beams Isosm “sete p50, "9, Uae, ne in Maat (193), ene Wp 7 3,9. 190. Gaur ewe Aled Miche (1853), ened V9, 905, 191. Np 215 (7B). Vhs “tee a enn eve {exe lange ein opcode tne cam ange ood ts (Sr Sern Me "yp. 10s) 192, Cie, Vp. suf, 5), 08. pa 3) 19h, Dube Eapete 426), eed Vp. 86 1 » ce Vp. 825 Oa. 3). TREES een bi) Patan were no mare prec ee a Cima re mind hc ing aad el ee eS (ide. card Ys p20 FS. "iaanmaan ti hace sa Pte he onsite ened peak oe "he development of ritesoe 20 Notes co pages HEH6 195, ¥, pea (V2) "his sheer pts Benn resin fr ening Hie seri ts os a arn rn oho ata fo seme Fs ee aero heen hes tna sessment th would "Ed recent mn psu wae” CT Aa a Pre tp. 6 15 ners en tHe pie th es Sanit 18 ea te ede sare or Tere Fa ena a pb ben th wea he Fath ea SP ema ge on te ao i sa eh Fa sano he se opera (Ma Shatter ae ay 19, p28 V2 199. Vp. 282 (61. 200. Vp. $9 008 ap 201. Der Astor ale Peedurnt ph ‘a, Hence th pbntasmnagorn™ ash neue (HO IMS. i, eh pera BE es Sal camo, paid theo the hashin se (Ss J 2 208. p 1052 "Ber Sstoramng. ot Vp 682 ft, Bean mension Rest he atop ine he Fee A ite teat fn ety Gt 3,3) Byam a Jeg i see Sey me eps oui oer” xan et esata Seared alte ore aa 8H, 205. Vp 8 8, 2G, Manuals hace tainly eee selina encom de see eee aan! abort rat mee ae il ume of rer ect tthe eee eon wl make bs Ko a ee ete rrdiand fy am torso tecnologia cae el Becomes mlectaa He utes ha tthe igs of de SL Fecal aver masce pace a at ere an sea SS sealing ad ernie” (Vs p16 [Der Saving 27.\ p 560 (M1083) 208, Those ae cet ei nth p= 17 ene to KS, "Mary" (Ypp. -A0 don. Xp D1 a, 2) dhe eas ee (U2) hich plage flea 2 ee The Riad wean ce “OT care win he lect sre uf che aaa erligh on onfe ons arnt ch ore tdi sx: antes if aan ee recom ucla The er pnt hat rag a tr atures aso wih van la are air. ev Ite (0 ate Hk func demeles rm atresia 210. Vp SHON. 4 [Notes pager HiN- 15 BU, Trew op 2B carats th ages co Fe STM he km te osha a pe pr a ad 21, Edo rae (00), eee Vp 90 eb spt, esa his peneilgloified the etsion el Mctne ol he eae et [piscine maar msc oe fe omy asec ne Ome ea het ee ong en a a Ten 215 Boda. Vp 2 Se ace ah B ls Pa pp 2S bry 2.Ys tire 219... ee ara, 22.1. p 1 ted ead BY pS espns 22. V9 64 2 gu xy 28.V.p Ss ene 2 Np. 25 6 28, Vp. 1 eB exp 2% tn nmr made Gene 18 wething else bu a ewe = ‘nal 2 best Surana us his arate a Hens ats whch Sane TL cat sone ts cme he ton pea WE Te et pa [ber 322 Sepa eter make eel eth eonied orsaeed wi praluren (Vp. 20 a tre th Sou 2m Vp an 5 229 He ey Gone Simms eno woke anne fig tn ater fr isnt erent erp fe ua seme et sume rata al pats Sigs” hee 0 pena Kael Blass 281 “Newey von tomes! za ixegentine ‘Jone tka, Pani Bo122 ‘Notes ve pages 159-160, 21, "Neves von amen", p58 ‘252, “Nena von Blame", B18 ‘es Muboly Sage om phox 258. “Noes von Blamen." Hl, p. 152. Bea ‘ihe 2 ere ceenhing als te tae dhe serve tt ead erate renal! pie £284, Newrs von men" Hp 82. 6 Historical Nature: Ruin Tiel sea) of Nagase la tno (ih eon Bags ‘aa ‘ Di G81. p. 361). “Rnd fenchanmen ot histor" (nn, ce der Norge ED Gt 2.Vsp OOU (TI, Hales Tha, 3. Vsp. 106 (a 4). Phe move opens wh descr fhe Pasge ds Moe New) 3 tat dsk cots fore] ped na bun fgg we ahi s Trans exuies damp pungent el and semered wah ned ruling Hack wh Fr ne saree dvs awison a hag she ling hes fig a ng tzpeiy shu hse] TME made dg bend re at mane a ‘ich wd snes mune an bare therm | |hc Page Poe Seo ple {bye tra me aro [Emile Zoe, Taro Ropu aneUsoard Tancack Tew Yon Pog Books, TB. pp 31-52), 4. Vp. HS 1985 expe nae ns 2a, 9). “A hat abou which we ae speaking Ize] teh sot ul shel hs ever ed ton atin bog” Vs 109 [D3 Teche W, Adorn. “Die ee der Noturgesebiche (1982), Geant Sten, wo Pulte Paselnin e. Ra Tiedemann Healer a Mai Sulekanp Ves. 1973), pr 256 Adorn een the nnefomous des vec nee Lk ey ed Clos Cessna bi er he ery stuns th Mara see pfs {© 'teshinm, bur Laker eee ne ofthe Hegelian) to Tha of te Noe cond aur aman eeu hs wel sultan ef ae to efor the Sma teatine moment fo nestle them Th pare eur me obo Sal ‘Presnngls ike fst ware tte frozen see-conples tae ae come inn fe waemng the soul (es hil of sls [Wate ufdeesing waren, col {etare Si he uve porleenke be abemed see the mesa nt el awalcng ofthe pve ds crated orconaied in efrmer or auppeard exten, over, howevet, capable of bem exper y stair wares” (ted nd PP. 35) Ade 1. Adora, “Die Lees." G8, p.387-CE Benjamin's omen ina ‘cand Luka ame wo sie eaclsnns spt even wae et 335). 8. Adorno, “Di ee ra Die Mee..." GS, 957 erage ep "681, 9.337 9, Adorno, "Die He. GS, 38 23 Notes to pager 16-165 SSauedg see aaeeaaaae 10. Remain considered! he emble bk Hc emblem buks oe Hse “the st dee agonal was king tt CPanel a eemes he "A Tete oad (1 p34), Adar, Gp 39-58, 12, Dimer is. 34 Taupe sods p55, 8 Ther ut 935). ed by Aaa, 08 tp. 88 eaggeblem hac heen dsc Whe Bars ee Gat Kiear “Pema fg mate nse ais tes eso ee ‘ied werd wh ols is hada ols ne ea usta fea pce Net ou ane sees ax nek ek ne RET fn which este sem eee a ehh emblematic sensu een asta Tie wna 4 Jesption mules evident the sonnet ea wie bese the separate leet te grape oe | Bo he don a isan the deo oa ee oo Snr eer eee den tt Heat es Mts (Stage Ue Meee ee 18, Baroque pubishers prefer ws the d pean dramas of Jab Avr, ted Trap sd, 1216 (1M expat rte no. 1 dee p85 a, 2: 9, 19. Seen. Yap. 7a 20. Taner pe eo A, acne are par ms mt cancel she fic that he arama ve a chs ere whale which which ath enter fl omen a a i cumtewte quai” (Travnet sy 389) Nn Het ba Father, ts trust 22.1215 (1935 expose ete on Iason HY, 6 AV umes sin tial 909-10) tn 67. Ths amen et wa rma specca wk sekcenes 1 Henan peed bk on Bacar Te co eee (his lw the Pesaro dscaned i the Ineadaronee ech ee 2. Treen sly. by. 5, Te mance ae | --Lappearss ihe ls hentageata ange tat vem the mes wot ely nl aa petoneae ‘pt Psturesquc fed ofrons"" (Kari Grn cd Tee 27. “Fortes stole dea i ase a ae mt A a] maf rons af Solas nthe em ote sh” Partpe age pee oo HOME BE