Your response should a) sketch his argument, using specific examples; b) place it in the context of the way you consume and produce your own culture (art, music, video, and other forms of creative expression), and c) indicate whether you find him convincing in whole or part.
Class Responses
Andrea Pelose
Considering the different ways in which painting, photography, and film have all been reproduced, I stumbled upon the idea of writing being reproduced. Certainly a manuscript can be made into a novel, which can be reprinted a number of different years. A column can appear in a newspaper or magazine and later be reproduced online or vice versa. Ideas can even be recycled, spanning to film or concepts can inspire another author to write a variant novel.
Yet the impact of writing itself can never be a product of reproduction. No matter how many different mediums are used to feature a body of writing, people will always act with a degree—no matter how small or large—of difference. Each reader comes from an individual background and has experienced diverse things; therefore their reactions to a work of writing will also be individualized.
The word choices an author chooses can also take on various connotations. For example if something is merely describes as blue it could be sky blue, navy blue, midnight blue, and so on. The reader alone is the one who will image their preference.
This displays the link between writer and reader. A writer may create a unique piece of creative writing, but it is the reader that obtains this work and imagines it to be something truly original and incapable of being reproduced, often varying from the writer’s original vision. No matter how efficient or innovative technology becomes, it will never entirely be able to affect the impact a work unless it can severe and reprogram a person’s psychological perception. [30]
Nick Engel
Walter Benjamin’s main argument in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is that new technology has the ability to reproduce works of art and by doing so it dilutes the original piece of art and takes away the original works “aura”. “Aura” is referenced many times in Benjamin’s essay and is his way of describing a work of arts originality and purpose. A reproduction taken out of context losses its original intention and can take on a completely different meaning. Benjamin states that, “one might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art.” Another theme that we see in Benjamin’s essay is the idea of perception. Benjamin states, “to pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose “sense of the universal equality of things” has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction.” Benjamin seems to feel that with mechanical reproduction perception of the original work can be altered and completely changed. Along with his political statements he seems to worry that the masses perceptions can be altered through mechanical reproduction and altering of the original message. Another theme that Benjamin focuses on is film and its narrow focus. He feels that a camera man is limiting the wide range of what can be seen to a very narrow range that the camera man controls. In film there is a lack of the “whole picture” and the creator can force the watcher to only see a small piece of the puzzle. Benjamin states about film, “approached in this fashion the film might represent an incomparable means of expression. Only the most high-minded persons, in the most perfect and mysterious moments of their lives, should be allowed to enter its ambience” Overall, his argument is complicated but seems to have the main theme of worry over new technology taking away from arts originality.
When looking at my own consumption of culture I can relate to some of the points I have read in Walter Benjamin’s article. While modern technology has given me more access to art and information there is no comparison to going in to see an original work of art. In modern examples going to a museum and viewing an original painting has a different “aura” to it then looking it up on Google images. Going to a live concert gives a new context and perception to music than downloading a song on iTunes. Film has changed a lot since Benjamin’s article and now television and 24 hour news channels have added a new element to modern technology creating mechanical reproduction. For example attending the Democratic National Convention would be a completely different experience and would give a person a different perception of the event then somebody who watches CNN’s reproduction of the Democratic National Convention’s events. While I feel there are many negatives to mechanical reproduction the fact that technology has evolved so that events can be witnessed around the world to me is a positive. While these events are not the same as they would be if seen in person and in their original form, I feel it raises the intellect and knowledge of the people of the world and makes us more global. If mechanical reproduction did not exist, we would be limited to the culture of our backyard and our current global economy would not be possible because we would be unable to communicate with each other. If you are fortunate to go see works of art in their original form by traveling to museums that is the best way to view these works of art, but if you are not fortunate enough to be able to do that going to your local library and viewing these images on a computer or in a book are also ways to appreciate these works of a art in a completely different context.
Overall, I found Walter Benjamin’s article difficult and tedious to read. This could be because I have not read much on this topic and my knowledge base is limited or I may have just been distracted. Even though I found the reading difficult I agree with his main argument that mechanical reproduction dilutes the original work of art and creates a whole new perception of the work of art. While I agree with many of his arguments I still feel that mechanical reproduction is a positive for our world. Because of mechanical reproduction I am able to discover elements of culture from all over the world. While these experiences are completely different then those who witness these events in person experiences, I am still fortunate to be able to see events in other parts of the world then my own backyard. [30]
Scott TurnerThis week we read an essay by Walter Benjamin, a German-Jewish Marxist literary critic and philosopher. Specifically, we read “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” which was written in 1936 and while the bulk of the work is a discussion of how the transmission of the idea art is affected by its technical reproduction, it contains explicit overtones to the political era of the time, namely the politicization of art as it pertains to both Communism and Facism. Another pervading theme in this essay is the introduction (was he the first?) of the idea that unique art inherently has an “aura”. This discussion of his essay serves as an exploration and critique of the themes, although I feel like my lack of knowledge on the historical context in which this document appears is insufficient to fully understand how it critiqued the political situation of the times and I also think that I cannot fully understand the mindset someone like him would have to have to view the transition of art through technology in this way. Unless I am mistaken, though, the entire essay is about who owns cultural thought—the pictures that the public fixes upon—and is an equal indictment of both the role that film and Fascism have played in the process.
Benjamin starts the essay by immediately mentioning Marx in the preface. He explains how because Marx saw so clearly and at such a fundamental level the failings of capitalism he could predict that the formation of a classless, communist society would abolish the proletariat quickly but the formation of the societal superstructure would take longer. Only now, he argues, can theories on the formation of art now thorough mechanical reproduction be fully understood and therefore be used as a weapon in a society with no classes. And he argues that this is happening with Fascism, and as we learn later on in the epilogue is a reference to how the war theme is being beautified.
Even in the first section he goes straight into talking about film, tracing the development of technology directly from the Greeks method of stamping coins to the sound film. Now that it is so easy to reproduce images quickly through technical means, he argues that we must ask what implications the reproductions have had on the traditional form. The second section seeks to get a working definition of authenticity and what makes a work of art unique, and when he first introduces the concept of the ‘aura,’ saying that “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.”
This tradition, Benjamin argues, is the association of art with magic and secular or religious ritual as well as it’s hierarchy in the structure of the powers that be, Benjamin argues by saying “Originally the contextual integration of art in tradition found its expression in the cult. We know that the earliest art works originated in the service of a ritual – first the magical, then the religious kind. It is significant that the existence of the work of art with reference to its aura is never entirely separated from its ritual function.” Things get a little tricky here as Benjamin says that in this age where film has become the next new form of transferring art that there is no longer any ‘authentic’ form of it. It’s not a lithograph which has an original painting on which it’s based. This is where he argues that once authenticity cannot be applied to art its function is reversed. “Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics.”
Benjamin continues to talk about the role of art in cult and ritual for a few sections until he goes back to address in sections VII and VIII the debate of the artistic value of photography and painting, which is good because his leap to claim that there is no longer any authenticity just because it’s a photograph or a film was a bit shaky. He does have an effective quote from Pirandello in section XI and a good point when he recognizes that the film really being many separate performance spliced together. I like what he says in section X about the “The cult of the movie star, fostered by the money of the film industry, preserves not the unique aura of the person but the “spell of the personality,” the phony spell of a commodity,” all the while recognizing that while film can promote revolutionary criticism of social conditions we don’t do that. I also really like his comparison of the Surgeon and Magician to the Painter and Cameraman.
Having made his case that the public is encapsulated by the film, he continues to explain how the lack of authenticity has resulted in the mechanical reproduction of art changing the reaction of the masses toward art concluding that “A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it… In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art.” Essentially Benjamin argues that the public has become distracted by the spectacle of film from real issues, although I could be kind of mistaken here—I had no idea what he was trying to say about the Dadists in part XIV.
In terms of the epilogue, as far as I can tell this is all to say that understanding this can show the war images being put out by Fascists are a threat something that should be being combated by the communists who Benjamin believes will gravitate toward the better form of politicized art. Unless, of course, I’m completely mistaken: this was one of the hardest essays I’ve ever read. [30]
Cassie Gladden
Walter Benjamin’s essay, “The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” discusses the impact of reproductive technologies on art and the social implications they have on society. His three main arguments are first, that technology has contaminated the purity of art and caused a loss of aura that exists in authentic pieces, second that the new technologies of film and photograph have allowed for art to have a political functionality and lastly, that reproductive technologies have given art the ability to “mobilize the masses.” My aim for this essay is to assess each of Benjamin’s arguments, then place his ideas in the context of how I consume and produce media, concluding with an evaluation of his essay.
“A work of art has always been reproducible,” however the social impacts of this statement became apparent with mechanical reproduction technology. An early example of the social impact of these technologies is the spread of literature that happened after the discovery of printing. Lithography followed printing which, according to Benjamin, allowed for the mass production of graphic art. Photography followed which was a step away from film. Photography and film are the best representation of how mechanical reproduction shrivels away the, “aura,” or the uniqueness, of a work of art. For example, the shadow that a mountain casts on you is lost when it is photographed.
In addition from taking away the, “aura,” of a work of art, mechanical reproduction depletes the dependence on ritual that was the original reason for producing art. Using the examples of the ancient statue of Venus, portraits of the Madonna, and invisible medieval cathedral sculptures, Benjamin explains that it was not what art looked like, but whether it existed. Now however, “mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual.” Due to the mass production capability of a photographic negative, the criterion of authenticity is lost. Benjamin continues his logic stating that, if there is no need for authenticity, the function of art changes from ritual to political. In order to better understand his logic, Benjamin looks at the evolution of photography. Originally, photography expressed ritual value since the subject matter—mostly people—was more important than the beauty or meaning of the work. This changed with Atget, a photographer whose subject matter was deserted Paris streets. Suddenly, photography became “evidence for historical occurrences and acquired a hidden political significance.”
As photography became political, it became apparent of other political capabilities of reproductive technologies. First, is the ability of the camera to shape and portray a subject differently than reality; using camera angles, slow motion and zoom to paint the picture the operator wants to show. For this reason and others, Benjamin’s last argument is the ability for film to “mobilize the masses.” The synergy of shock effect, lack of concentration that film demands, and mass production capabilities is why Benjamin feels film has this influential capability to mobilize the masses.
In regards to Walter Benjamin’s article in the context of the way I consume culture, I am going to focus on two points: the further removal of the “aura” as a result of mass digitalization of art and the reproductive capabilities in regards to speed and reach of the Internet. Computers have allowed instant accesses to visual, performing and musical arts. With the simple click of a button you can be transported to a performance at Carnegie Hall or see the works of Cézanne, Manet and Monet that hang in the Musee d’Orsay in Paris. Benjamin argued that the “aura” is lost when art is photograph. I want to argue that it is lost even more when viewed on a computer scene. Not only is the “reproduction of a work of art lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be,” it is also cluttered by all the other distractions that the Web possesses such as pop-ups, email alerts and AIM chats, which further drain the “aura” of a work of art.
The second topic is the impact of the reproductive capability of the Internet. More specifically, how fast it happens and how reaching its impact can be. Once something exists online it can be infinitely reproduced and spread through email, blogs, word of mouth, etc., with the click of a mouse. It was because of the fast, reproductive technologies of the Internet that Burger King’s viral marketing campaign; the Subservient Chicken, received 20 million hits in its first week (Beuker 1).
Artists can use the Internet as a tool to gain exposure. Sites like MySpace allow for music to be reproduced for others to hear (The site currently exposes 3 million artists to egger listeners.) Although there is some “aura” lost in a recorded track versus a live performance, the benefit can out weigh this lost. Without the Internet, new musicians would not be found, and arguably new musical movements would not happen. An example of this exposure happened in 2006 when Perez Hilton, celebrity blogger, mentioned a little known unsigned band, Skybox, on his site. That day alone, the artist’s song was heard 10,000 times (Masterson 1.) These few examples illustrate how large of an impact the reproduction technologies have on present day culture.
I felt that Benjamin presents some insightful and true arguments. There is a loss of “aura” in reproduction of works of art. I agree that film is a way to mobilize the masses. However, I feel that his argument was hard to follow and lacked a clear focus. The break up of the chapters did not flow from one to another and his ideas were hard to decipher. Lastly, I feel he would have been more convincing if he incorporated more passion into his writing.
Works Cited
Beuker, Igor. "Burger King: Subservient Chicken Case Study." Viral Blog.
Masterson, Katheryn. "MySpace, MyStage." Future of Music. 05 Oct. 2006. 8 Sept. 2008 http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/2006/10/05/myspace-mystage/. [30]
Jason Andrews
In Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, he discusses the repercussions of replicating art and the advent of film and photography in societies perception of the 20th century. He argues creation outside of a human’s normal capability is achieved in reproduction and advancements in art that creativity begins to be lead by technology. Benjamin continues that through mechanical reproductions of art itself, the aura of the work — the originality and authenticity of work as well as the sense of awe and reverence on experiences in viewing said art and its context in society — is lost on the audience. According to Walter Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in external attributes such as its history, its restricted exhibition, its undeniable authenticity, or its cultural value.
As he continues, a tension between created perception and a classical vision arise. The loss of aura and value amongst traditional art leads to a greater emphasis on politics than rituals. Benjamin writes, “for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual”. To Benjamin, Aura becomes indicative of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois structures of power and its further association with mystical ritual. As he describes however paintings cannot be viewed by the masses, therefore films achieve more progressive views, and mechanical reproduction creates diffusion between concentration and distractions.
With film it becomes apparent that the visual is determined through the eyes of the director. It weakens our perception towards the work of art and creates blinders for the audience defining the viewer reception of the piece. This loss of aura provides for the existence of mass consumption and the potential for politicization of art. The distraction from perception caused by mechanical reproductions creates a “covert control of the extent to which new tasks have become soluble by apperception”, Benjamin writes. The withering of the aura becomes an ambiguous force that allows for the ideals of both free access to cultural objects and a critical attitude toward them. "Instead of being based on ritual, [art] begins to be based on another practice - politics." For Benjamin, the politicization of art becomes a communist ideal; in contrast to Fascism which forces an appreciation of politics in order to maintain social control.
Benjamin claims that the withering of aura can be a positive thing because it makes art accessible to more people. As a Marxist he believes that Communism should bring art to the masses and add a political meaning to it. His argument defines the modern viewer as distracted, an absent-minded individual, driven by modern visuals. Essentially he writes as a proponent of the influence of the media (violence, sex, drug use) on society as a whole. Benjamin’s argument that modern mechanical reproductions have stymied the ability of the viewers to invent their own perception of classical art, and even create their own habits and trends, has strong validity. And the effects of this trend, while Benjamin refrains from forecasting, have slowly been emerging in today’s media and the excessive argument that media begets violence. And even in the trends of young American’s and their dependency on technology for information and communication. Hell, even musical artists are shamelessly promoting a political campaign for the up coming elections.
While Benjamin’s argument that Art becomes a basis for politics is hard to follow throughout his essay, I tend to agree with his diatribe. The availability of today’s media allows for access to information and news around the world. This advancement has allowed viewers to gain a more comprehensive understanding for the world and inform individuals of social trends and politics. While I struggled at times to grasp his arguments throughout the work, one line stood out above the rest. Walter Benjamin writes, “A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it. He enters into this work of art…In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art.” This line creates a simile to summarize Benjamin’s argument. While an individual can be overwhelmed and even submissive to a political agenda, mechanical reproduction of art allows for a multitude of peoples to infuse politics into their being and understanding at their discretion. [30]
Jennifer Pace
In the essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of the Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin addresses the effects of new technology on all forms of art. He challenges people by questioning the uniqueness and authenticity of art that is filmed, photographed or printed rather than painted or drawn. Through Benjamin’s perspective, these other forms of art lack in both meaning and what Benjamin refers to as an artwork’s “aura.” Throughout the essay, aura is referred to as a sense of wonderment and appreciation for a piece of artwork that has a more traditional approach and shows its rare originality. This idea of aura, Benjamin believes, is completely lost on these newer different forms of art. Walter Benjamin also debates that art has lost its imagination and compares art to politics. Like art politics do not reveal all its truths at first. Today politics seemed to be covered up by aesthetics that distract people from knowing what they are actually trying to say.
The technology revolution, especially the technology of photography, created a crisis for art. During this period of time, Benjamin claims that “art reacted with the doctrine of I’art pour I’art…a negative theology in the form of the idea of ‘pure’ art, which not only denied any social function of art but also any categorizing by subject matter.” The thought that “pure” art does not exist like it used to is ridiculous and shortsighted. Art cannot be truly defined by one media, nor can it be contained by strict rules and guidelines. It can range from painting to creating images that go on the Internet. Art is a form of expression that is represented through visual cues that help tell a story. It is a way for the artist to express their feelings or ideas, and should be up to the artist what form of media is used. Benjamin also brings up the point that through these new forms of art produced by mechanical reproduction our society lacks the desire to use and read written material. Abel Gance concurs, saying that we are regressing that “we have come back to the level of expression of the Egyptians…Pictorial language.”
Double majoring in Graphic Design and Interactive Media Studies shows that I design and consume a lot of art and media. On a daily basis I create pieces of artwork that are printed and reproduced multiple times. By Walter Benjamin’s assessment of art, all the things that I design lack authenticity and originality. His writings are a slap in the face for anyone that creates art using any form of new media technology. He has disregarded to the fact that art is an evolving expression that cannot withstand continually following the classical traditions of the past. Characteristics of the classical traditions are still seen in the today’s art. We have pushed the boundaries of these traditions and have been able to come up with new ways to engage viewers to use their imagination that can reveal the story of the art piece. The only part of his essay that I found convincing was the section about photography in magazines. Benjamin states that photography has “become the standard evidence for historical occurrences.” Photography in books and magazines has made it easier to depict historical events. The pictures give viewers the ability to feel like they are at that moment in time. Most of the photographs have captions under it, giving it a brief description of the story it is telling. These captions take away from challenging people to come up with the meaning of the photo on their own. The thing that I love about art is the ability for everyone to take away a different meaning and feeling about the piece. Certain images affect people in different ways. Art is all about how it people react to it. It is created to make you think and to create a discussion of it meaning and emotions.
Film was another form of art that Walter Benjamin criticized. He believed that cameras, lights, special effects and camera angles take away from the “reality” of the story that they are telling. The stage is where the true reality and imagination can be found and film is a place for unimaginative because everything is revealed.
Art will always be evolving with the emerging technologies. With each evolution of art, new things will be created that cause people to be in amazement or to absolutely hate it. Both reactions are what artists are looking for. They are looking for the “moral shock effect.” [30]
Chelsea Clements
a) Having just finished reading Benjamin's piece, I find myself a bit confused and overwhelmed by his plethora of thoughts and they manner in which he presents his arguments. Therefore my sketch of his arguments may be missing the overall point he tried to get across but I do believe I picked up on the main themes.
Benjamin argues that works of art that are reproduced lose their presence in time and space and the impact that the original art piece had on the public is changed. He says, "the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence." The reproduction of art has only been accelerated through technological advances. Benjamin notes that film is the most powerful agent in the contemporary crisis of the mass movement. This is where I become slightly confused as the piece begins to focus more on aura and less about film.Benjamin goes on to talk about the decay of the aura, cult and exhibition value and the question of whether photography is an art before coming back to his thoughts on film. His love of film is clear, but my understanding of his love is not. Hopefully class discussion will help me understand this piece more thoroughly.
b) I'm not sure what you mean by placing this in the context of the way I consume and produce my own culture, maybe because I don't understand Benjamin's argument, but I will make a comment on a statement he made.I disagree with Benjamin's observation of how a cameraman differs from a painter. He says that the painter maintains a natural distance from reality while the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web. He also says that the reality of the film is incomparably more significant than that of the painter.
I'm not positive that I understand Benajmin's thoughts completely, but as the daughter of a painter, I have to argue that painters do not maintain a natural distance from reality. Among other things, my mom paints landscapes and outdoor scenes. When doing so, she is not keeping distance from reality, she's creating it. When I look at some recent paintings of wooded paths, I can envision walking around the bends and over the twigs and leaves on the ground. Her ability to create such an effect takes a lot more skill than a cameraman who is filming a walk down a wooded path. I understand that a camera man is using his camera, just like a painter is using a brush, to create angles, lighting etc for a certain shot, however, a cameraman has his physical scene set in front of him. My mom has to create it from her imagination.
c) Once again, I'm unsure whether I picked up on Benjamin's main argument but I do find his argument about reproduction of art as destroying its aura. The first pieces of art that came to mind when thinking of reproduction were the Mona Lisa and Starry Night. If given the opportunity to see the Mona Lisa or Starry Night in person, I'm not sure that I would because I have seen reproductions of these two paintings on posters, t-shirts, mugs, you name it. By putting these masterpieces on the above objects "pry an object from its shell" and destroys its aura. To play my own devil's advocate, I will say that by reproducing art, it expands the publics knowledge of art's existence. Whether or not the knowledge of the art's existence leads to appreciation is unknown. Not too many people are lucky enough to travel to the Louvre or the Museum of Modern Art to view these paintings in their original form. [30]
Meaghan Luby
Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” is a very intriguing and opinionated piece that is still very relevant in today’s cultural media. As a mere creative writing major, some of this very lengthy and controversial (at his time) essay was more then a bit over my head but, from what I could actually infer from the piece, his basic argument was centered around film as a medium and the effects of culture on film as well as film’s effects on culture and society. Walter Benjamin essentially appeared to be indicating that, without traditional values, nor what he referred to as ritualistic value, as well as the shattering of the artistic “aura” in original mediums, art in “this age of mechanical reproduction” is instead brought to the masses as an audience and is based upon those politics instead.
The facet of his argument I found most compelling was a relatively short paragraph within the middle of the essay when he discusses the “increasing extension of the press” which has had the lines between author and reader blurred due to additions to the press such as “letters to the editor”. He explains how anyone could (in principle) be published somewhere “thus, the distinction between author and public is about to lose it’s basic character. The difference becomes merely functional; it may vary from case to case. At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer.”
Writing is the form of creative expression I most consume and produce, and while for school I still look back to the classics, most of the modern pieces I am assigned are not only found in the comforting bindings of my books but also out on the web. Short stories especially have a habit of being put up on Black board and discussed (slash torn apart), as well as on fan sites where they are also properly overanalyzed past the point of artistic recognition. This brings me back to the previously mentioned argument by Walt; the ever increasing gray area between writer and reader. This rings especially true to us today with the Web interfering even further in the blurring of the lines. Not only in fiction, if only especially in journalism has the boundaries fallen.
Newspapers and on-line magazines are the professional version of the new web frontier but many, many more less reliable (or in some opinions, more reliable) citizen projects are also popping up all over the web. Due to citizen journalism, just about anyone can get into the media of the web and make a difference out there with the shattering news the world contains. A person merely has to decide they want to participate then go about joining an already established site, or there is even the option creating your own and, ta-da! Instant journalist! Breaking news on the weekly behaviors of your cat? Of course that can be made into a webpage. More seriously though, a person nowadays can use these tools to get scoops on modern issues, events, and interest stories and even pull people in and keep people connected to their site by tagging. While I feel like this is a good thing in terms of getting the news that needs to be brought out into the open into, well, the open, I can't help but wonder if how damaging this is to the actual journalism field. Do journalists support citizen journalism with the mantra of "all news is good news! The public must know!"? Or begrudge it as we can be assured Walter Benjamin would when citizen journalists get the scoops first or report on issues the mainstream media wants to ignore or simply make a mockery of their art? One thing is clear, with news blogs and these afore mentioned citizen journalism projects- it is stunning how much farther we have fallen then what is now seemingly a simple problem Walter Benjamin saw in the new “degrading” methods of writing such as “letters to the editor”.
While I feel he had several correct and valuable points made in his essay, I didn’t agree with his overall point, especially in terms of the “aura” aspects. The reverence we have for the new forms of art, be it film or literature or even journalism, may be tarnished but “shattered” as he seems to believe is a gross overreaction. Film can be very moving, very true, and even though it may be meant to be brought to a mass audience rather then individuals, I don’t see it as unoriginal or less valued then other art forms. So, essentially, I agree with him in part (such as the lines blurring between writer and reader) but can’t make myself agree with the harsh entirety of his essay. [30]
Mary DelGrande
Walter Benjamin makes several arguments in this article, especially about different works of art and how each work either connects with the individual because of the aura it has or the aura it does not have and the disconnect that piece with the individual. A play connects with the individual because the actors on stage can change their attitudes and emotions to focus on the audience, “film actor lacks the opportunity of the stage actor to adjust to the audience during his performance, since he does not present his performance to the audience in person (VII).”
While I found his argument interesting and realized I had never thought about these art forms in the way he described them, I disagreed with him about the aura of actors on stage and on film and how minimal acting generates the best response from viewers. In section IX, Benjamin quotes Pirandello and states that the film actor feels as if in exile – exiled not only from the stage but also from himself…the projector will play with his shadow before the public and he himself must be content to play before the camera. Benjamin’s response to this is that because the aura is tied to his presence, there is no replica of it on film because there is a discord between the audience and the actor. For example, if the actor does not have the correct emotion to a noise he hears, the director can redo the scene. If an actor on stage does not have the correct emotion to someone falling over, the audience will react appropriately because they expect the actor to respond with the proper emotion.
In the second portion of this section, Benjamin notes that experts have said, “The greatest effects are almost always obtained by ‘acting’ as little as possible.” I disagree because actors on film have to work harder than actors on stage to convey more emotion, therefore acting more than a stage actor. Take the movie Titanic for example. Yes, many people went to see Leonardo DiCaprio but they all left crying because he was an excellent actor who conveyed his emotions effectively and touched the audience. His aura is seen on film, where as on stage if one is not sitting close enough to the stage that aura is lost. The movie screen can project to everyone, not just the people sitting closest to the stage.While Walter Benjamin makes very adequate points about painting and the uniqueness of person – works of art, an individual does not have to physically be in the presence to enjoy and appreciate what they are viewing. Films, even silent films, make this case, as do National Political Conventions we see on television today. Not everyone has the opportunity to attend a Political Convention, like the current ones going on for the upcoming election, but as we watch we still feel the aura from the speakers as audience members sitting around a television discussing the arguments. [30]
Megan Skelton
I would consider myself an artist in several definitions of the term. As a graphic design major, it is in my nature to admire work that is mechanically and technologically reproduced and consider the means used to do so as part of the art form.
In his especially thorough article, Walter Benjamin examines art (in the traditional sense) as well as films as a means of critique. In his introductory paragraph he states “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”. This is a statement that remains true 70+ years later. Art had a different connotation even less than a 100 years ago. I was intrigued by his summary of reproduction methods such as engraving, etching, woodcut, and lithography, which would later be surpassed by photography and then by film. Having studied and practiced each of these forms, I have grown to admire them, not loathe them.
I can agree with Benjamin when he says that even perfect reproduction of work are lacking the element of “presence in time and space”. But I also can agree that aspect is part of its intriguing appeal…it gains a whole new sense of authenticity. In his time, I’m sure that the quality of reproduction gave great depreciation to the work of art, whereas now, in some cases, the reproduction may be confused with the original. Benjamin spends some time highlighting the “aura” of the work of art and goes on to say that it is the “aura” that withers with the innovations of mechanical reproduction.
One statement that forced me to re-evaluate was this: “The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition”. Is this to say that whatever is tradition at a particular point in time is what makes it distinctive art? Or is it moreover saying that once removed from the time in which produced, it is no longer art? I remain confused by this statement.
Further into his article, Benjamin progresses to speak of art in prehistoric times, asserting that the work of art, “by absolute emphasis on its cult value was first and foremost an instrument of magic”, only later being recognized as art. I understand this to mean that art can be accidental and that new functions and means of art do not always have to be purposeful but can be stumbled upon.
When photography was first introduced, there was great thought allocated to the argument of whether it was to be considered an art form or just an innovation. It had not yet been decided whether the innovation itself had transformed the nature of art itself. As I said earlier, I believe that the whole conception of art has evolved dramatically over time, and will continue to do so. We will still continue to study the history of art and the steps that is had made to become how we currently perceive it. But art, in my mind is meant to be a pure reflection of culture and yes, innovation. Benjamin’s argument moves into film, examining the stage actor versus the film actor, and the audience view versus the camera angle. This to me is almost a completely separate argument that I suppose stems from more of the same. Film, like art prints was a leap towards the stretch of creating the opportunity for a broader audience. One must travel in order to see a theatrical production but not so for film, which makes it more likely that the film will be viewed on a more massive scale. I agree with Benjamin in that the viewer takes on a completely different perspective in the realm of film versus stage, but even today the two are two completely separate art forms. Benjamin’s stance on the argument is “that there is no greater contrast than that of the stage play to a work of art that is completely subject to or, like the film, founded in mechanical reproduction”. It seems a statement of disgust, but I perceive it in a different light.
Later in his article, Walter Benjamin scrutinizes over which is more captivating, artistic value or scientific value. I believe that the two often go hand in hand. A section of the article that frustrated me, was to read the viewpoint of Dadaist, Duhamel. Although he was purely making a statement with his Dada “art”, what gives him the right to be outraged by film. Is that too not a statement that art can come in any form?
The article is finished with an assertion of two polar opposites: distraction and concentration. A person who concentrates on art is absorbed by it. Yes, full concentration requires absorption. But can a distracted person master tasks as well? Ask the multitasker.
Side Note regarding Epilogue:
Out of the entire article, I was most confused by the epilogue and its cohesion with the meat of the article. I didn’t find the relevancy in Fascism and war, to mechanical reproduction. [30]
