The Influence of Walter Benjamin On Aby Warburg-Libre

Delivered at: Warburg, Benjamin and Kulturwissenschaft.
Warburg Institute,
London, 14 June 2012
1

The Influence of Walter Benjamin on Aby Warburg

In David Lodges 1984 campus novel Small World, which begins at the
University of Rummidge itself thinly based on the University of Birmingham
the central character, Persse McGarrigle, a lecturer at the fictitious
University of Limerick, is concerned with getting his thesis on the Influence
of T S Elliott on Shakespeare published.

Central to McGarrigles thesis was the basic question: How has Elliott
influenced the way we view Shakespeare? In what way is our Shakespeare a
product of the literary landscape that Elliott transformed?

When I first proposed to talk about the influence of Benjamin on Warburg
it was not, therefore, in the sense of whether Warburg was a reader of
Benjamin he almost certainly wasnt or indeed whether Benjamins
thinking filtered through to that of Warburg in indirect ways I dont think
it did. Rather, I thought to ask the question: to what extent has the recent
reception of Warburg been shaped by the huge growth of critical attention
to Walter Benjamin in the past 30 or so years and to the perception of a
similarity between the two authors?

More provocatively, I might also ask: to what extent has viewing Warburg
through the lens of Benjamin, highlighting the areas of commonality
between them, made us reluctant to address some of the more problematic
aspects of Warburgs thought? Behind this question is a thesis; namely, that
we have still not yet found our way towards a critical engagement with
Warburg, and that much of the literature on Warburg has operated in a
largely affirmative mode, elaborating and celebrating his work, rather than
interrogating it.

Delivered at: Warburg, Benjamin and Kulturwissenschaft. Warburg Institute,
2
However, before I develop this further, as the first speaker at this
conference, it might be useful to start with some basic facts and consider
some of the broader contours of the nature of the intellectual relation
between the two authors that has been the object of so much interest. Until
the early 1980s Aby Warburg was a barely known figure. The Institute that
bore his name had, of course, long been an established part of the
infrastructure of academic and intellectual life, but Warburg himself
remained an enigma. In Britain and the United States Gombrichs biography,
first published in 1970, was read by few outside of a fairly tightly
circumscribed field of specialists, and the small number of other scholars
who expressed an interest in Warburg himself rather than the Institute,
seemed to be driven as much by their personal acquaintance with this
charismatic figure as by the intellectual challenge and drive of his work.

The marginal status of Warburg was partly due to the effects of dislocation;
the two volume edition of his writings, published in 1932, appeared shortly
before the Warburg Library was transplanted to London and as a result of
this and the political circumstances that compelled the relocation of the
library Warburgs oeuvre was cut off from its readership.

The historical invisibility of Warburg is also often attributed to the idea that
his work did not easily fit into recognizable disciplinary boundaries or
methodological frameworks, but I think this is part of the Warburg myth
that has grown up in the last 30 or so years. While still alive, he was a
respected scholar and the art historical profession appeared to have little
difficulty accepting his published writings, and here is the crucial point; the
material that has so often been seen as subverting the protocols of art
historical enquiry were never published, and so can have played no role in
Warburgs public identity until Gombrich first brought many of them to
light in his much abused unfairly I might add- intellectual biography.

Despite such a caveat, it is nevertheless the case that the image of Warburg
did not fare well in the relocation to Britain, even his students did rather
3
better from such enforced emigration. The story is well known of how
Panofsky, for example, adapted to the altered intellectual environment of
the United States and in so doing took iconography in a completely different
direction from that originally envisaged by Warburg himself.

Panofsky, of course, was not the only one to embark on a substantial
conceptual self-reinvention; Edgar Wind, whose most ambitious early
writings attempted to link art history to conceptual problems in the
metaphysics of scientific inquiry, underwent a similar transformation.
1

Although it had an immense impact on British academia, the Warburg
Institute and its scholars likewise succeeded in insinuating themselves into
mid-century intellectual life here, arguably being one of the most
prominent instances of what Perry Anderson referred to as the white guard
of migr thinkers who found refuge in Britain. Warburg himself, having
died in 1929, had no such opportunity (I suspect he would not have been
interested, anyway) and thus his work was a strange anomaly, largely
overlooked, occupying an awkward place even in the institution that he had
originally founded.

If we fast-forward 30 years to the present, the situation has changed beyond
all recognition. Commentators as varied as Griselda Pollock, Frank Kermode,
Benjamin Buchloh and Margaret Iversen have all been drawn to his work,
pressing him into the service of contemporary disciplinary debates, most of
them claiming him to be the single most innovative and important cultural
theorist of the twentieth century. As one recent commentator has noted:

Since warburgs work not only has the atlas profoundly modified the
forms and therefore the content of all cultural sciences or human
sciences, but it has also incited a great number of artists to completely

1
See Edgar Wind, Das Experiment und Metaphysik (Tbingen: Mohr, 1934)
4
rethink the modalities according to which the visual arts are
elaborated and presented today.
2

This is, of course, hyperbole. Warburg did develop some quite interesting
forms of visual and cultural analysis but, equally and I appreciate that this
is a contentious point that some would dispute - much of his thinking was
deeply conventional and was rooted in the intellectual sources with which
he engaged as a student and a young scholar in the 1880s and early 1890s.
Indeed, one might say that one of the major failings of Warburg was that he
eschewed any attempt to renew his own conceptual and methodological
resources; many of the working concepts and metaphors that feature in the
material related to the Mnemosyne Atlas of the mid-1920s, for example, are
hardly any different from those in the early notes of the Grundlegende
Bruchstcke of 35 years previously. Compared with the dynamic intellectual
trajectory of Benjamin during a shorter period of time, Warburg comes
across as a monomaniac, a relic of the intellectual habitus of Wilhelmine
Germany.

However, I am less concerned with whether or not Warburg merits the
volume of attention that has been expended on him; rather, I am interested
in the transformation of the broader critical landscape that lay behind the
rediscovery of Warburg in the 1980s and 1990s.

Central to this was the parallel rediscovery of Walter Benjamin. Although he
was a prolific and widely published author, Benjamin also remained a fairly
marginal figure in the field of critical theory until 1955, when Theodor
Adorno edited the two-volume collection of writings containing many of his
best known essays, that Benjamin began to gain greater prominence. And
even then it was not until the end of the 1960s when, in the aftermath of
radical student disaffection with Adorno himself, that Benjamin (along with
Marcuse) became the focus of substantial interest.

2
Georges Didi-Huberman, Atlas. How to Carry the World on Ones Back?
(Madrid: Museo Reina Sofia, 2011) p. 16
5

One of the most visible signs of the change of critical fortune in Britain and
the United States was the translation of a selection of his essays into English
as Illuminations in 1969 (as well as John Bergers popularization of
Benjamins ideas in Ways of Seeing in 1972) while in Germany Suhrkamp
began publishing the first volumes of the Gesammelte Schriften of Benjamin
in 1974, a project not completed until 1999.

This project made much material accessible to a wider readership that was
little known, but undoubtedly the most significant work to be included was
the complete text of Benjamins Arcades Project, which had hitherto only
been published in a fragmentary basis.

Thanks to popularization by figures such as Berger, and with his wide-
ranging interests that managed to combine critique of commodity culture
with writings on the history of photography, surrealism, fascism and Parisian
modernity, as well as literary classics such as Goethe, Baroque Trauerspiel
and German Romanticism, Benjamins writings exercised a wide appeal that
ensured that he became one of the major theoretical sources of critical
theory and cultural analysis from the 1970s onwards, and in many respects
eclipsed Adorno, Horkheimer and other representatives of the Frankfurt
School.

It did not go unnoticed that Benjamin displayed a lively interest in art
history. He had attended lectures by Heinrich Wlfflin at the University of
Munich in 1915 and, as Thomas Levin has suggested, Benjamin was a reader
of Alois Riegl by 1916 at latest. Benjamin himself acknowledged reading
Riegls Late Roman Art Industry as a student and in a 1929 article singled it
out as one of 4 Books that have remained alive, stating: this book is one
of the most striking proofs that every major scholarly discovery results in a
methodological revolution on its own

6
Alongside his 1933 review of the first issue of Kunstwissenschaftlichte
Forschungen, Rigorous Study of Art (borrowing the title of Hans Sedlmayrs
programmatic essay) Benjamin returned on several occasions to the legacy
of the Vienna School, and not always uncritically. In the second version of
his essay The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility
Benjamin critiqued Alois Riegl and Franz Wickhoff for the fact that they
were content to highlight the formal signature which characterized
perception in late-Roman times and failed to consider the broader societal
changes that underlay the shifts in Kunstwollen.
3
As he developed his own
Marxist politics his criticism became sharper of the failings of such formalist
art history given his commitment to the notion of cultural practice as an
expression of the economic base (I leave to one side the fact that he did
not clarify how expression differed from the traditional Marxist idea of
reflection).

However, it is Benjamins relation to Warburg that is our prime concern
here. It has long been known that Benjamin had more than a passing
interest in the latters work. His Habilitation on the Baroque Trauerspiel
made frequent reference to Warburgs essay on Pagan Antique Prophecy in
Word and Image in Luthers Times, drawing, too, on Warburgian
terminology in his descrription of the visual memory (Bildgedchtnis) that
was brought back to life by the Renaissance and in his reference to the
speculation in images (Bilderspekulation) that underlay Baroque allegory, an
economic metaphor that had clear echoes of Warburgs analysis of pictorial
inflation.
4

Benjamin sent Warburg a copy of his Habilitation with a view to gaining
acceptance into the circle of scholars associated with the Warburg Library,
but with little success. As Michael Diers has noted, this was a distinctively
one-sided relationship, for although the areas of interest common to
Benjamins book and Warburgs work have since been exhaustively analysed,

3
Benjamin, Writings 3, p. 104.
4
WB, 1.1 p. 395.
7
they were not evident to Warburg or indeed Fritz Saxl, and hence Benjamin
remained outside the Warburg circle.

Of course when it comes to parallel intellectual projects, it is the relation
between Benjamins Arcades Project and Warburgs Mnemosyne Atlas that
has been the object of the greatest attention. I shall deal with the nature of
this relation shortly, but before I do so it is worth considering the history of
its reception in Warburg scholarship. For recognition that there was a
relation between the two thinkers was fairly belated.

The small body of humanist-inspired scholarship on Warburg in the 50 or so
years after his death (here I am thinking of commentaries by authors such as
Edgar Wind, Dieter Wuttke, Carl Georg Heise, Gombrich, Saxl or Gertrud
Bing) made no reference to Benjamin at all, and this is hardly surprising, for
the Marxist radical theorist would hardly have featured on their
conservative intellectual horizon. However, even in the rediscovery of the
Warburg in the early 1980s, Benjamin did not feature prominently. The first
author to explore the conceptual and biographical connections between the
two thinkers was Wolfgang Kemp, in a contribution to Kritische Berichte in
1975 (the second of two articles on Benjamin and art history). Kemps essay
was in certain respects before its time, for no-one picked up on this theme.

Hence the 1979 exhibition at the Kunsthalle on Warburg that led to the
collaborative volume on Die Menschrechte des Auges by Werner Hofmann,
Georg Syamken and Martin Warnke, the following year 1980, one of the
single most important texts in terms of the retrieval of the Hamburg
scholar, made no mention of Benjamin. In the high profile Warburg
conference staged in Hamburg ten years later in 1990, Benjamin was still a
marginal presence.

As far as I am aware, the first extended analysis of the relation between the
two was undertaken by Roland Kany in Mnemosyne als Programm, published
in 1987, which considered the structure of historiographic representation in
8
Warburg, Benjamin and Warburgs teacher Hermann Usener, and saw in
them a tradition concerned with the role of the detail as an instrument of
historical interpretation. It was a Warburgian reading, for Kany also
identified in these three authors the passage from a concern with history as
mythology through to history as allegory. Appropriately, perhaps, Warburg
occupied the symbolic mid point between mythic and allegorical
historiographic vision.

Kany suggested similarities between Benjamins Arcades Project and
Warburgs work on social memory. Specifically, Benjamins description of
his task as collecting the detritus (Abfall) of history evoked (V 574), for
Kany, Warburgs interest in the Renaissance as the dreamwork of modernity,
while Benjamins aim of discovering the crystal of the whole event in the
analysis of the individual moment (V 575) was replete with echoes of
Warburgian attention to the detail. Conversely, Kany pointed to the
similarities between the photographic collage of the Mnemosyne plates and
the photomontage practices of the 1920s avant-garde, but he drew short of
making a direct comparison between the Atlas and the Arcades Project,
even though Benjamin had explicitly described the latter as a piece of
literary montage.

However, Kanys book was important because it brought together a range of
elements into a productive constellation that has since strengthened the
sense of corrrespondences between the thought of the two authors. The
idea of such correspondences is now a commonplace, although it is worth
reminding ourselves that as late as 1999 Kurt Forster felt compelled, in his
Foreword to the Getty translation of The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity, to
criticize what he regarded as the modish tendency to appropriate Warburg
to the cause of twentieth-century critical theory.

I do not intend to give a potted account of subsequent interpretations of the
Warburg-Benjamin relationship. Rather, as I indicated earlier, I wish to
focus on the Mnemosyne Atlas, and its parallels with the Arcades project,
9
for it is this that has shaped recent interpretations of Warburg and,
crucially, has created a larger audience for his work. For the Mnemosyne
Atlas has played a decisive role in changing perceptions of Warburg as the
scholar of Renaissance culture into the image of Warburg as leading cultural
theorist.

How should one, therefore, approach Warburgs Atlas project?

Much of it encapsulates the shared concern of Benjamin and Warburg with
the historicity of experience, the relation between modernity and social
memory, the relation between history and memory, and the nature of
history itself. However it is its epistemic function that I wish to concentrate
on, for it is this that has been central to the most important recent of
interpretation of Warburg, Georges Didi-Huberman exhibition Atlas. How to
Carry of the World on Ones Back, which was first staged at the Reina Sofia
last year. For Didi-Huberman the crucial point of convergence between
Warburg and Benjamin lay in the epistemological project that drove each of
them; specifically, the question of historical singularity and its relation to
the general.

This has, of course, been perhaps the central concern for all historians and
historians of art, but for Didi-Huberman, Warburg and Benjamin came to
surprisingly similar views about this issue at approximately the same time,
the 1920s. In the Epistemo-critical Prologue to Origin of the Trauerspiel
Benjamin argued that the individual phenomenon could not be
comprehended by subsumption under a general category, since this would
necessarily lead to the destruction of its particularity. Instead, he
attempted to replacement this Hegelian model of dialectics with the model
of the constellation, in which it was enough for concrete individual
elements to be brought into juxtaposition with each other for their truth to
emerge inasmuch the constellation would allow secret inner affinities and
correspondences to become visible without doing violence to their
difference.
10

It is no great revelation to state that it was this epistemological picture that
lay behind Benjamins subsequent interest in Surrealism and in avant-garde
photographic montage, and it is here that Didi-Huberman brings Warburgs
Atlas into consideration. For on the one hand one point to the superficial
similarity between the Atlas and a number of examples of photographic
montages from the 1920s, but Didi-Hubermans point is that the
significance of such apparent similarity goes beyond merely formal
parallels. Instead, it is based on the idea of montage as representational
procedure. For just as avant-garde montage embodied an alternative
epistemology, so, too, he argues, the Atlas was an attempt to restructure
the logic of historical representation; its juxtaposed images are presented in
their singularity, with all their affinities, conflicts and differences. As Didi-
Huberman states:

Mnemosyne thus arranges its anthropological objects without ever
sacrificing to the scientific myth of exhaustive classification, to the
positivist religion of final explanations or to the causal superstition of
univocal determinations
5

And later, he adds: It [the Atlas] is important, therefore, for its
morphological and critical content, its way of discovering and constructing a
whole world of hitherto unseen affinities or of conflicts ..
6

As an illustration he cites the final plate on the eucharystic ritual, including
Raphaels Mass of Bolsena in the Vatican, as well as a number of images
which, in their constellation, show the tragic complicity of dogmatic
establishment of the feast of Corpus Domini and the development of
Renaissance Anti-Semitism. And yet, he notes, the plate also includes,
inexplicably, a catalogue of Japanese corporal punishments, a photograph

5
Didi-Huberman, p. 176
6
Didi-Huberman, p. 176.
11
of hara kiri, and other newspaper cuttings that seem to difficult to reconcile
with the overall theme.

This illustrates what Didi-Huberman calls the kaleidoscopic
phenomenology of the Atlas; its very uncertainty and ambiguity throws up
the possibility of some new, hitherto unconsidered affinity, configuration,
relation.

It is for this reason, Didi-Huberman argues, that what he dismissively refers
to as Anglo-Saxon commentators are missing the point when they root the
Atlas in the tradition of the scientific atlas that had emerged in the
eighteenth century. Of course, it is always possible to point to the
precedents for Mnemosyne; one might mention Seemans hugely popular art
historical atlas first published in 1879, with a separate textbook by Anton
Springer. Yet this and other examples were completely different
enterprises, using the form of the atlas as a medium of taxonomic ordering,
that served to classify artworks which is precisely what Warburg was not
attempting to do.

On the one hand this is a highly persuasive argument and it gives the
analysis of the relation between Warburg and Benjamin a much greater
complexity than that provided by previous authors myself included. But I
would like to suggest that it raises its own conflicts and unanswered
questions.

First, as with most commentators on the Mnemosyne Atlas, Didi-Huberman
focuses on a small proportion of the total number of plates, including Plates
A to C, dealing with systems of spatio-temporal organization, Plate 1, on
divination in the ancient Near East, which features a sequence of
representations of the liver and images of Babylonian religious practices,
and Plate 2, which shows depictions of the mythological figure of Atlas, but
which Didi-Huberman takes as an allegory of the Mnemosyne Atlas itself,
and the final Plate. Like two others, Plates 77 and 78, these particular
12
plates bear out the Benjaminian interpretation and, in their combination of
material from a wide range of sources, from anthropological and
archaeological artefacts through to the ephemera of present day popular
culture, they justify, in addition, the claim that Warburgs cultural theory
was far in excess of the horizons of art history. Yet I would like to suggest
that these particular examples are exceptions in the Atlas. Most of the other
plates conform both to the rather more limited art historical framework
that was characteristic of most of Warburgs published writings.

Plate 31, for example, is dedicated to the theme of Northern devotional
imagery and Florentine patronage of Flemish artists, with Hugo van der
Goes Portinari Altarpiece occupying central place, with well-known
paintings by van Eyck to the top left and right, and Memlings Last
Judgement at bottom. This is thoroughly orthodox art historical material as
is, for example, Plate 37, devoted to the sculptural imagination in the
reception of antiquity, or Plate 39, which addresses themes Warburg had
raised in his doctoral dissertation on Botticelli and the role of bewegtes
Beiwerk.

This is perhaps a trivial observation compared to my main point, which is
the impact of Warburgs use of photographic representation. I am not going
to invoke here Benjamins thoughts on reproduction but rather those of
Malraux, whose Voices of Silence makes a series of observations that are of
relevance. Specifically, Malraux points to the leveling effect of
photographic reproduction; writing in the 1950s, in which black and white
was still the norm, Malraux argued that photographic images tended to
produce resemblences: black-and-white photography tends to intensify the
family likeness between objects that have but a slight affinity very
different objects of the same epoch have lost their colours, texture and
natural dimensions (the statue has also lost something of its volume); each,
in short, has practically lost its individuality but their common style is by
so much the greater.
7

7
Malraux, p. 24
13

Warburg was of course not interested in style, but a similar effect is
produced by the Atlas in respect of its presentation of pathos formulae: in
Plate 40, for example, concerned with gestural excess there is a number of
representations of the Massacre of the Innocents, most prominent of which
is Marcantonio Raimondis engraving of 1520, but there are others, too,
including Guido Renis painting of 1611, on the bottom row, and on the
bottom right, Bernard Picarts engraving of 1739. These are juxtaposed
with, on the right, 10 reproductions of mythological scenes from Baldassare
Peruzzis fresco of the Ovids Metamorphosis in the Villa Farnesina. We are
presented here with anything but a constellation of singularities; rather,
their appearance in black and white turns them into an arrangement of
specimens Plate 25, with its reproduced friezes from the Tempo
Malatestiano does this even more and the levelling effect of the Atlas
plate is further strengthened by the fact that scale has been distorted to
maximise the legibility of the individual objects in their difference and
similarity to each other. Here again we may call upon Malraux, who noted
that reproduction has created fictitious arts, by systematically
falsifying the scale of objects; by presenting oriental seals the same size as
the decorative reliefs on pillars and amulets like statues. As a result the
imperfect finish of the smaller work, due to its limited dimensions,
produces, in enlargement, the effect of a bold style in the modern idiom.
8

Let us grant, however, that these observations are erroneous and as
selective in their evidence as Didi-Huberman in his choice of plates to
buttress his argument. There still remains the basic question of
epistemology. As Benjmain famously stated about the Arcades Project: This
work has to develop to the highest degree the art of citing without
quotation marks. Its theory is intimately related to that of montage
9
and,
later, Method of this project: literary montage. I neednt say anything,

8
Malraux, p. 27
9
Benjamin, Arcades, p. 458
14
merely show.
10
These exemplified the idea of the dialectical image. Which
he defined as that wherein what has been, comes together in a flash with
the now to form a constellation.
11
There is a superficial affinity here to
Warburgs description of iconology as the analysis of the interval between
the engrammatic imprint of the past and its reactivation in the present, but
I wish to turn to Adornos critique of Benjamin on this point. For as is well
known, Adorno was critical of Benjamins assumption that the mere act of
juxtaposition the dialectical image or the flash of the instant in the
Jetztzeit was sufficient to generate a kind of profane illumination.
Adorno critiqued this vision, with its roots in the figure of the constellation
in the Origin of the Trauerspiel book, as insufficiently dialectical. His
recommendation, for example, that Benjamins essay on Kafka be more
thoroughly articulated (durchartikuliert) and dialectised
(durchdialektisiert) emphasized the need for philosophical work and the
role of interpretation. For Adorno Benjamins refusal to call on theory to
mediate the motifs covered in the Arcades Project prevented him from
being able to represent the phantasmagoria of Paris as a historico-
philosophical category and as he noted in his much cited letter to Benjamin,
he was concerned by the

questionable procedure of abstention in a subject which is
transported by ascetic refusal of interpretation towards a realm to
which asceticism is opposed: the realm where history and magic
oscillate.
12

And, later, he added that the theological motif of calling things by their
names tends to turn into a wide-eyed presentation of mere facts. If one
wished to put it very drastically, one could say that your study is located at
the crossroads of magic and positivism. That spot is bewitched. Only theory
could break the spell.
13

10
Benjamin, Arcades p. 460.
11
Benjamin, Arcades, p. 463
12
Adorno, Letter to Benjamin, in Aesthetics and Politics, p. 128
13
Ibid, p. 129
15

Now it could be said that Adornos critique applies to Warburgs Atlas; a
series of plates of often arcane images, it is far from evident that their
juxtapositions of singularities produce that flash of dialectical insight
Benjamin (and Didi-Hubermann) aimed for. Indeed, Adornos warning
regarding the oscillation between magic and positivism could be seen in the
two approaches with which Warburgs work always threatened to become
confused: the positivistic documentation of symbols and their transmission
(already evident in the work of Saxl) or the quasi-magical invocation of
archetypes (and here we touch on the difficult relation between Warburgian
pathos formulae and Jungian archetypes, which some commentators have
been keen to deny primarily because the parallel throws up awkward
questions about Warburgs project).

But of course as Didi-Huberman himself acknowledged, the Atlas was to be
accompanied by a large-scale body of commentary on each plate, so the
Atlas is not quite as vulnerable to Adornos critique as it might otherwise
be. But then, equally, its proximity to the Arcades Project is less certain
than some might claim.

I started out by stating that one of the reasons why Warburg has become a
topic of interest to such a wide array of commentators in recent years is
due to the perceived similarity with Benjamin. It is due to this relation that
the image of Warburg has managed to become so much more varied. As my
response to Didi-Huberman might indicate, I am less convinced by some of
these attempts to create the Warburg as we would like him to have been if
only he had been a bit more like Benjamin.

However, my ultimate point would not be whether or not we can trace
patterns of affiliation between the two but rather that doing so should
come at a price, specifically, a closer engagement. If we wish to see
Warburg as embarking on a project which, in its epistemic and
methodological suppositions, was comparable to that of Benjamin, then
16
those suppositions also need to be analysed critically. Up until now,
Warburg has been largely spared such critical analysis ironically, one of
the few to have done so is Gombrich and instead he has been the subject
of a largely affirmative discourse. Reading Warburg through Benjamin
clearly brings out more clearly his actuality, but it might also encourage us
to read him in greater depth, too, dialectically, perhaps, to tease out the
philosophical and political stakes of his writing, precisely at a time when
numerous voices are calling for a renewed Warburgian cultural theory even
before its implications have been worked through.

The Influence of Walter Benjamin On Aby Warburg-Libre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Walter Benjamin On Aby Warburg-Libre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delivered at: Warburg, Benjamin and Kulturwissenschaft.

You might also like