The presenters provided a clear and easy to follow presentation highlighting the important aspects of Walter Benjamin's life and work. The bibliography was the most informative part of the presentation, detailing the key events and publications in Benjamin's life. However, the precis of his writings was too complex and did not adequately break down the ideas. There was a lack of context, which led to confusion about some of Benjamin's conclusions. Stronger references and explanations of technical terms would have improved understanding of Benjamin's concepts and influence.

1. Review – Walter Benjamin The layout of the presentation allowed a smooth and easy read with clear emphasis on areas that the group felt where important topics to discuss. The bibliography was specific and relevant to the key moments in his life and was the most interesting and informative part of the presentation. The précis did give a more comprehendible point by point reflection of his writings and It is clear he produced a substantial amount of work, but it felt as though our understanding was gained from the events that surrounded his publications, rather than the ideas put across within them. Some of the statements within the précis seemed a little too complex to understand and didn’t break down the ideas and concept enough. There was no context applied to the content and so it became confusing at points why the theorist had come to these conclusions. We felt with stronger references we would have had a greater understanding of the concepts. We didn’t see an individual ‘influence on art/performance/society/theatre but from the précis of the books it is clear that his thinking’s reflect much more closely upon performance, so this my not have needed to be repeated. The presentation used a lot of technical language, specific to theology and philosophy, that we as readers had not encountered before. There was no glossary to help gain an understanding of what the key terms meant. We were at times lost as to see how they were relevant to his thoughts, given that we only had the dates, names and titles. At times it was unclear as to what was being discussed in the presentation because we had no prior knowledge of the background to the theorist other than his educational history. We were unable to understand the reference to ’traditional and critical theory’ as they did not elaborate on what this essay meant. Although this is a specific point to detail, and it wasn’t directly relative to the subjects individual views, it left us lacking a further understanding. Bibliography and biography are perfectly competent, ranged in sources and all cited clearly.