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