Although this does not speak directly to this week’s readings, I remain curious about the potential of montage to physiologically induce dialectical thinking–what Eisenstein wanted, if I understand correctly–in our current historical moment.

Benjamin: “Just as the entire mode of existence of human collectives changes over long historical periods, so too does their mode of perception. The way in which human perception is organized–the medium in which it occurs–is conditioned not only by nature but by history” (“The Work of Art” 104). Is it possible that we have become desensitized to jarring juxtapositions of images, given the pervasiveness of this as an advertising technique? Might we need something other than montage to experience shock at the strangeness of the everyday? Or are we perhaps beyond an aesthetics of montage/shock altogether? What I find most exciting about software and technology are the opportunities it offers for entirely re-imagining the way in which meaning gets made in the world, the ways in which we use technology to engage in collective world-making. Given this, I wonder whether we might also need to rethink the early 20th century avant-garde investment in montage/shock and look to new technologies for glimpses of other aesthetics that might physiologically induce new ways of seeing, knowing, and being.

Although this does not speak directly to this week’s readings, I remain curious about the potential of montage to physiologically induce dialectical thinking–what Eisenstein wanted, if I understand correctly–in our current historical moment.

Benjamin: “Just as the entire mode of existence of human collectives changes over long historical periods, so too does their mode of perception. The way in which human perception is organized–the medium in which it occurs–is conditioned not only by nature but by history” (“The Work of Art” 104). Is it possible that we have become desensitized to jarring juxtapositions of images, given the pervasiveness of this as an advertising technique? Might we need something other than montage to experience shock at the strangeness of the everyday? Or are we perhaps beyond an aesthetics of montage/shock altogether? What I find most exciting about software and technology are the opportunities it offers for entirely re-imagining the way in which meaning gets made in the world, the ways in which we use technology to engage in collective world-making. Given this, I wonder whether we might also need to rethink the early 20th century avant-garde investment in montage/shock and look to new technologies for glimpses of other aesthetics that might physiologically induce new ways of seeing, knowing, and being.

[dianakamin]

In a related vein, I am interested in putting Benjamin’s “reception in a state of distraction” back on the table for discussion– it seems key to the question of shock, montage as a visual language, and thus dynamic visual communication in general, but perhaps is not as historically determined as the aesthetic of montage. As I read it, Benjamin’s reception in a state of distraction is the message or image that pierces through the distracted state (perhaps the “anaesthetized” state) of modern urban-dwelling citizen, through an almost tactile sensorial experience. Does reception in a state of distraction have any purchase in discussions of contemporary visual argumentation?