Situating interiority

I1a,5. The whole idea of the interior seems to be condemned over and over. It is the product of magic, of household gods, of dream and delusion, of ornamentation, of an opium trance, with poetry (art) but most of all industry to blame for these ridiculous expectations, "exploitation of all things made to serve artificial needs," and of course this is how commerce works, where the "dividends" come from. This dynamic is reported in 1842. Then immediately in I1a,6 the art and industry relationship is displayed again, this time in 1889 (we can note how bibliographic dating functions as evidence of historical evolution), where a kind of military-industrial complex runs in lockstep with art and intimacy. We can note how the relationship of these two areas, art and commerce, anticipates much of later 20th century and 21st century cultural theory. Again though, one of the interesting things Benjamin is doing seems to be tying this "progress"—one relation of art and industry in 1842 that transfers to another one in 1889—both to a historic movement or evolution (so that it has various iterations over time that are more or less refined or changed) and to the idea that his commentary, particularly as it exists indirectly through citation, is always situated within the operation of actual, material books, and ipso facto the functioning of text itself.