Between Scylla & Charybdis: Aestheticized Politics or Politicized Aesthetics?

Why does it matter that film minimizes the aura?

As soon as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applied to artistic production, the whole social function of art is revolutionized. Instead of being founded on ritual, it is based on a different practice: Politics.

Aura: The aura of an original work of art that's tied to our appreciation of the work being in a museum or special place (ie- cathedral where religious rituals are practiced)

Theses defining the developmental tendencies of art can... contribute to the political struggle in ways that it would be a mistake to underestimate. They neutralize a number of traditional concepts-- such as creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery-- which, used in an uncontrolled was, allow factual material to be manipulated in the interests of fascism.
...

The nice thing about film though, is that it has all the following features tied to its' Medium (easily mechanically reproduced):

- No original
- Spaces and times are constructed
- Actor's performance is stitched together
- Actor's do not share spece with spectators
- Multiple points of view
- Appeals to a MASS AUDIENCE and a COLLECTIVE AUDIENCE
- Reveals new aspects of the thing reproduced (time-lapse, slow-mo)

But cult value does not give way without resistance.

Institutions can, however, put the aura BACK into the film.

Film capital uses the revolutionary opportunities implied by this control for counterrevolutionary purposes. Not only does the cult of the movie star, which it fosters, preserve that magic of the personality (celebrity) which has long been no more than the putrid magic of its' own commodity character, but its ' counterpart, the cult of the audience, reinforces the corruption by which fascism is seeking to supplant the class consciousness of the masses.

How do institutions put the aura back into film to deny film its' radical potential?

Fascism's "aestheticization of politics" (ie Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl 1935)

Thus, film is the middle of a battleground for the modern masses between communism and fascism.

The increasing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing formation of masses are two sides of the same process. Fascism attempts to organize the newly proletarianized masses while leaving intact the property relations which they strive to abolish. It sees its' salvation in granting expression to the masses-- but on no account granting them rights. The masses have a right to changed property relations; fascism seeks to give them expression in keeping these relations unchanged. The logical outcome of fascism is an aestheticizing of political life.

"Fascism seeks to give [the masses] expression" as a cover for doing nothing for their wellbeing.

"'Let arts flourish, and the world pass away.' says fascism... This is evidently the consummation of 'art for art's sake.' ... Communism replies by politicizing art."

People may feel as if their feelings are being expressed through these empty pieces of aesthetic expression. Communism is going to reply by politicizing art. That is to say, infuzing the matters of the world into art itself. Not having "art for art's sake, but art only for the sake of the world, for political progress.

Art, Symptom or Sinthome?  Academic or Bohemian?

Epic or Lyric?  Sublime or Beautiful?

The sublime, Burke informs us, is all about the frenzy of the passions. This desire, indeed, near masochistic lust for the sublime, is the product of a bored and unexcited society. As general society leads to more leisure, less work, and more commonality, more banality, the desire deep within human beings for the sublime grows. Without work, the human impulse for the sublime materializes the state of general inactivity. Lack of excited movement is the cause for the want of the sudden horrid convulsions of the sublime, which make the painful delightful. 

Indeed, Burke writes, that pain can be delightful. This is what we would call the masochistic sublime. Delightful is different from pleasure, as Burke tells us, primarily because pleasure brings us a feeling of rest, felicity, and joy while delight doesn't necessarily produce that. Delight can be produced even from self-inflicted pain, or pain inflicted by another person. Furthermore, because man is a fundamentally hierarchical animal, the desire for egalitarianism is really a byproduct of the masochistic sublime at work, instead of a genuine pleasant egalitarianism motivated by the beautiful, people submit to dictatorial politics. 

The dictatorial politics of egalitarianism whether of the Left or the Right which would move us away from egalitarianism and back to more hierarchy because people are drawn to the aesthetic spectacle of power and horror. As Burke tells us, despotic governments are founded on the passions of men. And the French Revolution, despite all of its apologist, was definitely an energized and irrational, was energized by a irrational passion as it was the lack of labor, the boredom of unemployment that reactualized the spirit of self-preservation. 

And Burke also tells us that the sublime is rooted in our primordial impulse for self-preservation.  The desire, the desire for a better future, which is not rational but passionate, leads to people submitting before power to make manifest that lust deep in their souls. What is clear from Burke's aesthetics is that the sublime is characterized by frenzied, deep yearnings, passion, and terror. The beautiful is characterized by restfulness, pleasure, and love. 

The defining aesthetic for conservatism is the beautiful, for conservative sees the fragility of the beautiful. And to quote Cicero, admirable systems which are very easily toppled and destroyed, which would bring rot, widespread harm, to the masses of people who benefit perhaps unconsciously from such systems guiding, and protecting, and providing for them. Revolutionary movements, both of the progressive and reactionary stripe, are defined by the aesthetic of horror, dread, and terror.