Research: ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility’ – Walter Benjamin

Discussion

After my submission of assignment 4 my tutor suggested that I strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of the work by reviewing (among other activities) the essay by Walter Benjamin;

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Benjamin, W. (2010))

 This post describes my takeaways from the essay and related material.

Background to the essay

It is interesting to look first at the context in which Benjamin wrote the essay since this clearly influences his views. Some facts (En.wikipedia.org, 2017a):

• 15 July 1892 – 26 September 1940) was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic and essayist
• 1936, a first version of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (L’œuvre d’art à l’époque de sa reproduction méchanisée) was published
• The French edition in 1936; and the revised German edition in 1939, from which derive the contemporary English translations of the essay.
• In the 1930’s he lived predominately in France
• He committed suicide in 1940 anticipating repatriation to Nazi hands
• Benjamin was influenced / associated by/with:
  • Members of the Frankfurt School
  • Author Hermann Hesse, and composer Kurt Weill
  • Theodor Adorno, German philosopher, sociologist, and composer known for his critical theory of society
  • Bertolt Brecht German poet, playwright
• The rise of film as an artistic medium as Benjamin was writing the essay

 

Arguments of the essay

The goal of the essay to produce a theory of art that is “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art” in mass culture; that, in the age of mechanical reproduction, and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics  En.wikipedia.org, 2017b):

A summary of the essay would be Benjamin that the aura of a work of art is reduced by mechanical reproduction.

I have selected a number of quotes from the essay that bring up a number of key concepts and arguments:

It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced.

That core is its authenticity. The authenticity of a thing is the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it from its origin on, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relating to it. Since the historical testimony is founded on the physical duration, the former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction, in which the physical duration
plays no part. And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object, the weight it derives from tradition.
One might focus these aspects of the artwork in the concept of the
aura…

Just as the entire mode of existence of human collectives changes over long historical periods, so too does their mode of perception.

The uniqueness of the work of art is identical to its embeddedness in the context of tradition. Of course, this tradition itself is thoroughly alive and extremely changeable.

The history of every art form has critical periods in which the particular form strains after effects which can be easily achieved only with a changed technical standard-
that is to say, in a new art form.

Such is the aestheticizing of politics, as practiced by fascism. Communism replies by politicizing art.

My view

The essay was written by a Jewish philosopher during the time of the rise of influenced of National Socialism and also Communism. Marxist analyses forms the basis to the introduction to the essay and being continually referred to in the essay. The references to Marxism and fascism, as well as the discussion of the emerging influence of  film, now seems dated (especially the us and them focus of Marxism) but echo’s the view that art is embedded in the context of tradition.

The general argument of reproduction devaluing the aura of the original work of art resonates with me.  I see that is an extension where there is more than one original (a spectrum): an artist second attempt, a forgers copy, lithographs through to prints and electronic distribution. The amount of devaluation concomitantly decreases to the copies of the original art.

Another aspect that I find interesting to consider is the idea of time and space. We can have a single piece of art at fixed location e.g. Mona Lisa in the Louvre. We anticipate that it is there (which was not always the case), what happens to its aura if it were to be moved to another location, perhaps with other paintings in an exhibition. Depending on the other paintings some of the aura of the Mona Lisa might be transferred to them or the aura of the Mona Lisa might be diminished. I would be interested to know if there is research exploring these aspects.

I was wondering how photographers are seeing the authentic, the unique at the time of the capture of the image and then subsequently in its viewing?  If nothing else then from a financial perspective it makes sense to control the number of reproductions.

All-in-all a very stimulating essay.

As i was researching this essay I came across an BBC video from John Berger (Ways of Seeing , Episode 1, 1972) that examines some of the concepts raised by Benjamin in a very accessible manner.

References

Benjamin, W. (2010). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Lexington, KY: Prism Key Press.

En.wikipedia.org. (2017a). Walter Benjamin. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin [Accessed 13 Jul. 2017].

En.wikipedia.org. (2017b). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction [Accessed 13 Jul. 2017].

Ways of Seeing , Episode 1. (1972). Director J. Berger. UK: BBC.