Sunday, December 9, 2012

Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction


Citation: Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Marxists Internet Archive. UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television, 2005. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
                                                                                                                                                     Summary and Important quotations:
 
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is a short text that has the feel of a manifesto, and describes the numerous changes that affect artworks in the modern age of mechanical reproduction. The most important concept explored by Benjamin in this text is the notion of the presence and the aura of the original work of art, and how this aura is affected and threatened when this work of art is mechanically reproduced. He also speaks of how viewer’s perceptions and treatment of art can change from this ability to be reproduced, and talks specifically about the decline of the ritualistic practice of traveling to see and/or experience an original work of art in the designated area in which theoretically exists the aura of the work of art (“The cathedral leaves its locale to be received in the studio of a lover of art; the choral production, performed in an auditorium or in the open air, resounds in the drawing room…”).
 Motion picture film and photography are also talked about extensively in this text. He talks specifically about the obvious hesitations that surfaced when photography became prominently used: whether or not this technology would replace painting as an art form because of its ability to capture more accurately that which is perceived by the eye, as well as its ability to capture that which is momentary and fleeting. However, and more importantly, he points out:  “Earlier much futile thought had been devoted to the question of whether photography is an art. The primary question—whether the very invention of photography had not transformed the entire nature of art—was not raised.” In other words, photography as an art form is fine, but we need to realize how photography changes the context of other art works—like paintings and sculptures and their auras—because of photography’s inherent ability to yield multiples, which can be bought and sold and which can cause the work of art to exist in many places at once…in short, the destruction of aura. As for film, Benjamin discusses extensively the changed role of the actor in regards to film, and how his or her role is reduced to a “type” or a “commodity”, and how the actor’s aura is depreciated, “for aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it…” Now the actor acts for a mechanical device rather than an audience...the audience is now the camera.
Benjamin’s main points are resounded in the somewhat ominous and cautionary opening quote by Paul Valery, that, “In all arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power… We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.” In the text Benjamin predicts that not only will art be heavily affected by mechanical reproduction, but that a shift will occur in which art will be made in order to be reproduced…a prophesy that no doubt has been fulfilled in this day and age.

Response:
                I was very much intrigued by Benjamin’s text, especially the ominous and cautionary overtones that I feel are as relevant today as they were when he wrote The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, but in a different context. What I was intrigued by most is his idea of the aura of the original work of art, and how the reproducibility of a photographic image inevitably changes, if not destroys, this aura. This is the case now more than ever in the digital age that we live in, with our increasing amount of access to the internet, which is the central hub for information and photo sharing. In my opinion there are two sides to this aura-destroying coin, and at the end of the day we must ask ourselves where the benefit resides. On one side of the coin, I agree with Benjamin’s hesitations, for I place a lot of value in the unique, one-of-a kind, handmade, unreproducible work of art, as well as in the aura that surrounds the unique work of art as something that is individual, something that exists in a physical time and space that I can share with it when it is in front of my person. I also place a lot of value in the ritualistic pilgrimage of going to see a work of art. On the other side of the coin, I can see where the benefit of the internet and its capabilities exist…there is a ton of artwork out there I will never get to see in person, but I can see this artwork on the internet or in a textbook (of course I would prefer to see the artwork in person). The photographs are not sufficient reproductions of the aura of the original work of art, but they are something. This leads me to think of artists and of myself as an artist. The internet is a great way to gain publicity and notoriety; it’s a way to allow galleries and collectors to see your work, which in turn could lead to you exhibiting your work so that it may be seen in person with its entire aura. As an emerging artists this publicity is more than helpful, although I do prefer to have people see my work in person, especially since it is sculptural, than on a flattened plane, be that a screen or a photograph.  So reproducible technology has multiple downsides as well as benefits… and for me, photographs are simulations of reality, and the original work of art will obviously retain more power, beauty, essence, magic, whatever you call it…AURA than a reproduction, and to me, a great deal in the importance of art resides in this ability to radiate aura.


No comments:

Post a Comment