Your assignment is to write a 3-4 page essay that explains how one of our theorists work or ideas are useful for thinking about issues raised in another theorists work.  In order to focus your essay, early in your paper you should identify one major claim from a theorist's writing that wil be the cornerstone of your essay and explain it to the reader.  Your clain for this paper will argue for a rethinking of one theorist's claims in light of another theorists claims.  Essentially you will put two thinkers in conversation with one another. 

Think not only of importance, but also in terms of interest. Why is it interesting to put these thinkers into conversation? what will it do for scholars who are in interested in reproduction?

(what is the meaning of refraction of society? Reproductionàmedia? ) Is it possible for two theorists to have similar phenomena or do they separate their ideas distinctively from each other?  According to Philosophers V.N. Volosinov and Walter Benajamin, the two establishes scholarly texts intertwining similar thoughts about the issues of art of reproduction.  Although the two have agreements they also have their own separate claims.  V.N. Volosinov emphasizes the ideology of how reproduction is produced whereas Benjamin believes mechanical technology is the tool that supports the replica of art.  Volosinov claims that reproduction represents an ideological sign in which ultimately refracts reality and is determined from the perspective of individual consciousness, social communication, and the levels of social classes.  Although Theorist Walter Benjamin agrees with Volosinov that social significance promotes reproduction, he believes mechanical equipment is the underlying answer.

According to Volosinov, consciousness of human minds allows the reproduction of the sign (art) to be interpreted.  It is crucial to understand that “every ideological sign is only a reflection, a shadow of reality, but is also itself a material segment of that very reality” (11).  An image is not only an image itself but can represent a whole set of new ideas and realizations related to the world.  Analyzing the sign up brings potential for the reproduction of the artwork to be captioned by the viewers.  However Benjamin believes that “filmed behavior lends itself more readily to analysis because of its incomparably more precise statements of the situation” (238).  The mechanical reproduction of motion pictures allows viewers to illustrate realizations connecting to relevant society.  The action of watching art through a camera or any type of mechanical tool easily reveals the meaning behind the artwork.        

But in order for consciousness to affect reproduction Volosinov states that “signs emerge after all, only in the process of interaction between one individual consciousness and another” […] “only in the process of social interaction” (11).  An intellectual theory is stated that artwork can be interpreted from the views of different people.  It is an understandable argument that the perspectives of more than one person allow the sign to be reproduced with its possible meaning.  He also writes, “The individual consciousness is nurtured on signs; it derives its growth from them; it reflects their logic and laws” (12).  The imaginative thoughts and perceptions of groups who analyze reproduced artwork establish foundations of new ideas.  Volosinov’s view of the sign is significant because his ideology supports artwork to be displayed in another dimension.  And this dimension can involve religion, the spiritual realm, and or the values of human inquiry.  According to Walter Benjamin he claims that it is the camera that “introduces [people] to unconscious optics” (239).  His understanding undermines Volosinov by arguing that the unconsciousness refers to the perception of the lens of the camera rather than the state of mind of the unconscious self.  The two philosophers value the sate of unconsciousness but have contrasting views of how it supports the purpose of the meaning of reproduction  

Not only but also consciousness parallels with social interaction because Volosinov emphasizes words are the “purest medium” to communication. He believes that the “reality of the word, as it is true of any sign, resides between individuals, a word, at the same time, is produced by the individual organisms own means” […] (14).  The word itself is a “neutral sign” but has the ideological realm to creating any kind of significant recognition.  And this is based on the minds of social groups who come together to figure out the truth towards the reproduction the artwork portrays.  Volosinov informs that “the processes of understanding any ideological phenomenon at all (be it a picture, a piece of music, a ritual, or an act of human conduct) cannot operate without the participation of inner speech” (15).  To understand the idea of refraction of society relating to reproduction, a significant source of support will come from the communication of social groups.  Similar to the previous argument he also states that “the laws of the ideological refraction of existence in signs and in consciousness, its form and mechanics, must be studied in the material of the word” (15).  The sign of the reproduction represents symbols of meanings and Volosinov is claiming that words are the essence to creating interpretations.  Although a word is “a neutral sign” the potential of the word’s significance has the ability to portray intuitive assumptions over the whole group.  Once an intuitive judgment is made it is passed onto the socioeconomic class.

Volosinov also brings up social psychology and explains how the sociopolitical order dominates and manipulates the assumed interpretations of artwork.   He strongly believes that “Production relations and the sociopolitical order shaped by those relations determine the full range of their verbal communication—at work, in political life, in ideological creativity” (19).  The classes of higher power have the authority to portray any type of reproduction according to their opinions in order to hide any negative publicity.  If anything were to bring problematic controversy or disagreements to the public or society, the upper class leaders will be selective towards what kind of information they expose to the media.  Benjamin can also relate to Volosinov’s concern but because Benjamin lived under a Parliament system, the “bourgeoisie democracies comprises a crisis of the conditions which determine the public presentations of the ruler’s” (249).  The public society that has the control of which films can be viewed is under the power of the higher parliament.  The strict regulation of the sociopolitical leaders inevitably makes it difficult to appeal to the general public the intellectual truth of the film’s meaning.  But Volosinov reminds everyone that the “inner dialectic quality of the sign comes out fully in the open only in times of social crisis or revolutionary changes” (23).  The sign’s reproduction is therefore a symbol of historical or a significant event.  And the reality of its inner truth will be claimed from the intuitive observers who see beyond just the image.

The views of two philosophers based on the topic of reproduction encounter the simple issues of how society affects how reproduction is represented.  But Volosinov’s claim of reproduction as a sign and is related to values the refraction of reality questions the understanding of how mechanical reproduction is made possible from the perception of technology.  But through the philosophy of these two theorists’ influences relating to the reproduction of art; reporters, journalists, newspaper editors, and authors are able to distinguish their sense of perspectives and create their own intuitive ideas.