Historicism vs. Historical Materialism...and art!!

Perhaps what stuck out most for me was what Benjamin called “historical materialism”, in contrast to “historicism.” These are two concepts I am still unsure if I understand entirely. Early on, Benjamin describes historical materialism as something that “wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out by history at a moment of danger” (255). I really did not understand what this means. Would it have anything to do with the idea of using history as a sort of tool to refer back to in moments of conflict? There was one other part in the text that attempted to differentiate between historicism and historical materialism, and that is found on 262: “ Historicism gives the “eternal” image of the past; historical materialism supplies a unique experience with the past.” I take this as meaning that “historicism” is a more traditional and static view of history, “wie es eigentlich gewesen”, while “historical materialism” seems to make history more applicable for certain situations, and some how more present and alive.

In relation to what else we have read this year, the Ranke stood out, how Benjamin is clearly states that “To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it “the way it really was” (Ranke) (255). Clearly, Benjamin shares a very different and perhaps a more open view of history. He also makes a Schmitt reference in talking about the state of emergency, but where Schmitt describes it as “the exception”, Benjamin ('the tradition of the oppressed'?) describes it as “the rule” (257). Personally, I think that this is a dramatic and pessimistic view of history and “Jetztzeit”, but maybe there is truth to it.

There was one part of the text that really rang some bells for me, that being where Benjamin talks about what he calls “cultural treasures”, and how they have “an origin which he cannot contemplate without horror. They owe their existence not only to the efforts of the great minds and talents who have created them, but also to the anonymous toil of their contemporaries” (256). Its the whole idea of “to the victor goes the spoils.” This reminded me a lot of a trip I took last summer to Rome. I visited one of the most beautiful art collections I have ever seen in the Villa Borghese. There were many beautiful sculptures by Bernini and paintings by other famous artists. But I found out, that back in the day, the villa was actually owned by a very rich nobleman who would go to great means to acquire these pieces. Since he was so high up, he even had people killed so he could get these particular pieces for his collection. I think this is a really go example of what Benjamin and other historical materialists mean when they view these so called “cultural treasures” with “cautious detachment” (256). The pieces may be seen as beautiful, but they were acquired by not so beautiful methods. In cases like these, it would seem that the ends would by no means justify the means.