«Критическая» философия культуры: актуальные контексты и «точка сборки»

Abstract

The annual outbursts of controversy surrounding the presentation of the main film awards of the planet in the last few years (primarily around the Oscars) are important for cultural philosophy because they are indicators of tectonic shifts in the paradigm of modern cultural knowledge. The concept of ‘high’ culture is increasingly losing its ontological significance. Criticism fell upon this concept almost a hundred years ago, but so far this has been a fact of ‘high’ theory. Today, the denial of a ‘high’ culture has become the reality of mass communication. The pressure, which used to be a problem only for academic classrooms, has become an order of magnitude greater. This is the line on which we need a clear accounting of the results, the balance of pro et contra. The answer of the ‘critical’ philosophy is understandable in principle: the contradictions between the ‘high’ and ‘low’ cultures are not an insoluble conflict. The axiom of the death of a ‘high’ culture is incorrect. The modern theory of ‘high’ culture is possible. But its construction is cumbersome and not fast. You need to start by protecting the ‘high’ culture from reproach for violence. The assemblage point of radical criticism of the ‘high’ culture is W. Benjamin’s treatise “A Work of Art in the Era of Its Technical Reproducibility”. Therefore, the defense of ‘high’ culture cannot but begin with an answer to W. Benjamin. At the same time, thinking specifically about this small treatise, we need a careful analysis of the whole structure, the words of Benjamin as a whole. And this word is peculiar. It is thoroughly public and political. Benjamin’s treatise is not a theoretical reflection. This is a manifesto, more precisely, two manifestos. The first is the manifesto of the new Marxism. The second is the manifesto of the artistic avant-garde. Benjamin saw the possibility of synthesizing these two ideologies and gave his model. It turned out, firstly, unfounded, and secondly, it was dangerous. It is dangerous because culture is the main barrier that holds back the advent of utopia. Having destroyed this barrier, we find ourselves defenseless against utopia.