Walter Benjamin the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Essay

Notes on Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction for my ARTS1 students

I will effort my best to condense what I think are pertinent points to the word of understanding art through developments in production. I will also be adding points from other thinkers who I remember have contributions to the topic.

Every bit a disclaimer, I would like to annotation that I personally am not a Benjaminian/Benjamist as he does tend to mix bits of theory from Theodor Adorno'due south critical theory, Bertolt Brecht'southward Marxism, and Jewish mysticism. Our usage of theory must always exist under the dictum that this theory must coincide with cloth reality for it to be true; and to know if information technology is truthful, nosotros must be able to use this concept to brand changes in material reality.

If there is one thing you should take from this class, information technology is that whatever theory is idea to you from the humanities and social sciences must be used to change the globe, not to interpret it.

Now, allow us see where Benjamin tin can be useful for us.

A review of the dialectics of product and culture

The essay is divided into xv parts, including a preface, epilogue, and endnotes. The preface begins with statements regarding Marx's critique of backer product. The terms superstructure and substructure shouldn't surprise you. When Benjamin says:

"The transformation of the superstructure, which takes identify far more slowly

than that of the substructure, has taken more than one-half a century to manifest in

all areas of civilisation the change in the conditions of production." (p.1)

He is simply referring to the relationship betwixt production and culture we have mentioned in Part 5 of Lecture Notes i. The superstructure corresponds to political institutions, cultural attitudes and practices, etc. Meanwhile, the substructure refers to the overall way of production, which is made upwardly of the forces & relations of production.

We have briefly explained in Lecture Notes 1 how while by and large the way of production (with the forces equally the dominant gene) advances society frontward, at that place comes a bespeak where the relations of production hinder it — necessitating a change in the relations through superstructural changes (political-cultural movements/revolutions).

Benjamin too notes in role 3 that "during long periods of history, the mode of man sense perception changes with humanity's unabridged fashion of existence. " This is a properly Marxist idea which coincides with reality. In that location is no inherent "homo nature". Equally Marx and Engels say in The German language Ideology:

"The product of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at starting time directly interwoven with the fabric activity and the material intercourse of men, the linguistic communication of existent life…The aforementioned applies to mental product as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, faith, metaphysics, etc. of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. — real, agile men, every bit they are conditioned past a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse respective to these, up to its furthest forms. "

Thus we see that the general shift in our awareness and conception of the art object is shaped by the development of the productive forces (in Benjamin'due south example the ascent of photography and picture show as types of mechanical reproduction.) This is perhaps the fundamental theory in Benjamin's essay, albeit not his originally.

Mechanical reproduction and the loss of aureola

While it is as Benjamin says, that fine art objects are usually reproducible, the mechanical reproduction of art objects by the late 19th-early on 20th century Europe initiated a shift in our understanding and perception of art. This fundamental thesis coincides with our understanding of history every bit primarily advanced by the forces of production (in this case mechanical reproduction equally well as technologies similar the photographic camera), how it initiates changes in cultural forms (such as the birth of photography and picture palace), and how these cultural forms in the superstructure effect changes in people in order to change the fashion a society'southward mode of product is configured (this is Benjamin's hypothesis on photography and film'southward potential for emancipatory politics to advance society to a college stage than capitalism).

First, mechanical reproduction can bring out aspects of the original that transmission reproduction could not (ex. Photographs could resize/ingather/edit the colors of a painting in ways manually doing this could not). Second, mechanical reproduction can re-create the (ordinarily literary/visual art object) into spaces outside of the original context. It is in this deportation that Benjamin goes on about the object losing its presence or "aura."

So what is aureola? Well the aureola of an art object has something to do with the specific located-ness or presence of the object in a specific space. With regards to space, Benjamin uses the notion of closeness and distance. The art object "gains" more aura the more than "distant" it is from yous, in a sense that y'all socially cannot perceive it up close. We see this especially in galleries where you literally cannot become up very close to paintings or sculptures, especially the heavily valued ones. These objects have aura. Reproductions of these objects as photographs in other merchandise or in other media remove this altitude betwixt y'all and the object. Aura is diminished.

Well, I for one think this notion is coordinating to a lot of concepts such as the sublime — or that feeling of your senses being overwhelmed by something similar watching a storm at sea unfold from your window, a dandy mountainside view, a painting that stirs strong emotions from yous for some reason, a song that makes you lot cry without you understanding why, etc. It's an thought that, funnily plenty, really gained traction in — yous guessed it, 18th century Europe, with the likes of Immanuel Kant. The sublime in art normally has something to do with distance besides.

This notion of aura is tied to concepts of presence, temporality, uniqueness, and actuality. Benjamin does notation that the uniqueness of an fine art object is tied to its being "embedded in the fabric of tradition" then goes on to equate this uniqueness to aura. I guess if we were to Philippinize the term, aura could very roughly be equated to "dating" o yung dating nung art object sa yo. Encapsulated in this is a whole web of contexts that envelop the actual object itself, that is non yet our present concern.

Nevertheless, Benjamin's discussion on aura and uniqueness shifts to his notion of cult-value (which he seems to be borrowing both from Hegel and Marx).

A picayune fleck more on dialectics, and the cult

Benjamin goes on to hash out that for a long period of fourth dimension, the fine art object was normally connected to some form of ritual, that even if art practices go along outside the context of faith, they now function in what Benjamin calls "the secular cult of Beauty" from which we practice get our elitist definitions of art as something sublime, beautiful, etc. Benjamin says:

"It is meaning that the existence of the piece of work of art with reference to its aura is never entirely separated from its ritual function. In other words, the unique value of the "accurate" work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic footing, yet remote, is nevertheless recognizable as secularized ritual even in the most profane forms of the cult of dazzler.6 The secular cult of beauty, developed during the Renaissance and prevailing for three centuries, conspicuously showed that ritualistic footing in its pass up and the first deep crunch which befell it. " (p. 6)

Regarding the cult, Benjamin says that art is appreciated on 2 different poles: cult value, and exhibition value. Cult value refers again to that ritualistic function where the art object becomes a vessel/symbol/mark for worship or veneration which isn't necessarily equivalent to religion. Benjamin describes how early photography still focused on portraits, to which in some extent retained the element of cult value in that, "The cult of remembrance of loved ones, absent or expressionless, offers a last refuse for the cult value of the picture. For the last time the aureola emanates from the early photographs in the fleeting expression of a human being face. This is what constitutes their melancholy, incomparable dazzler." (p.8)

Yet, modern art works are generally shifting towards the exhibition value. What this more often than not means is that there is now a shift in the function of new art practices away from the ritualistic or cult. I don't call up even Benjamin was fully aware of what information technology meant. It could exist a foreshadowing of the post-structuralist gesture wherein without the anchor of tradition and ritual chaining the object to exist read or appreciated in a certain way, we live in a time where our appreciation of an object is up to free play (though I fence at that place are all the same being social forces that skew our ways of valuing a piece of work despite this relative "liberating" of the signification of an object).

1 matter we should note is that Benjamin is lifting from Hegel here. Both in his usage of cult/exhibition value, and by and large rules of dialectic as regards to how things change, which are more useful to us. Checking his eighth endnote, nosotros find:

"Yet in Hegel this polarity (cult-value and exhibition-value) announces itself as clearly as possible within the limits of Idealism. Nosotros quote from his Philosophy of History…"

Benjamin also takes from the dialectical nature of how things develop — that is, things undergo both quantitative and qualitative changes. This is something that is used in the text.

This concept of quantitative and qualitative alter tin be materially proven with how quantitative changes will eventually change matter or a phenomenon qualitatively. If one quantitatively changes the number of molecules in a sure compound, qualitative changes happen and it becomes a different compound altogether. Likewise, equally a political or cultural movement quantitatively takes concord over larger numbers of people, this will result in a qualitative modify in the disposition of social forces.

Benjamin uses this central law in dialectics to prove that qualitative changes in the technological production resulted in new fine art practices, and that quantitative shift from the cult to the exhibitionary is resulting in a qualitative change in the "nature" of fine art — or from our point of view, a change in the conceptualization and perception of the fine art object.

While quantitative and qualitative changes in dialectics is something we can use in our daily lives equally this tin be proven materially, the notion of cult and exhibition are taken from the idealist side of Hegel. And while all ideas take a material ground, they are not necessarily materially true.

Mechanical reproduction, film, perception, and politics

A big chunk of the essay at present follows Benjamin's thoughts on how motion-picture show and photography, as art practices birthed past mechanical reproduction, change our perception — or in his words, how they've fundamentally inverse the "nature" of art itself, every bit well as their political potential.

While this section is not as pertinent to our form, a brief summary will do equally the writing manner here gets a bit cluttered.

Benjamin noted that intellectuals of his day were wrong to try and subsume moving picture and photography into the ritualistic fine art. They were request the wrong question. It wasn't nigh if photography was art or non. They should've asked how photography changed how fine art is.

Next, Benjamin goes into detail about comparing theater and motion picture with regards to the actors too as the audience with regards to the photographic camera. While the functioning of a stage actor is made present mostly past the actor himself, it is the camera which presents the performance of the screen actor.

Benjamin notes several other differences regarding the loss of aura in a screen actor's performance while building upwardly the cult of the motion picture star exterior of the actual film object (through promotion piece of work, the world of showbiz, etc).

The cameraman and painter are compared through the analogy of a surgeon (the cameraman) who goes in-depth (close up) into the flesh of society and the sorcerer (the painter) who makes a prognosis of the trunk from a distance. The pictures of the painter are full, while those of a cameraman are multiple and fragmented.

Benjamin argues how much more than useful the images of picture are to how contemporary man views the earth, in that these images (seemingly, I might add) a view of reality that doesn't highlight its contraptions the way painting does. Film is able to prove us different aspects of reality which our naked eyes tin can't perceive unremarkably. As Benjamin says, "filmed behavior lends itself more than readily to analysis because of its decidedly more precise statements of the situation."

Peradventure the nigh conceptually useful role in this one-half of the essay lies with Benjamin's notion of the masses as distracted critics, and its political potential. To sum it up, because film lacks the way stage actors can connect with their audiences, the viewers are watching from the gaze of the camera, putting them in a position of somewhat alike to a critic.

Benjamin notes film, much similar other fields like sports and literature, has developed such that the audiences who partake in it become sort of experts in it. Back in Benjamin's 24-hour interval it is true that readers of literary textile and news could too transport in their material to the printing for publication. Today, the growth is unprecedented. People can literally annotate on just about any cultural piece or practice in social media — like critics. This isn't looked downward past Benjamin. In fact, he kind of celebrates this. He notes that at that place is a fusion between the enjoyment of the work and the orientation of experts (critic/commentator). The masses' critical and the receptive modes intersect.

I reason for this is that picture show is consumed en masse. Unlike the painting which is more more often than not appreciated through private contemplation, the individual'south reception to film is affected by the experience of other people who view it. For Benjamin, paintings cannot give a good aesthetic experience for a commonage public the fashion films can, or equally he states, architecture.

Benjamin then, through architecture as an fine art form which we exercise not contemplate but "distractedly" apply, (in a sense that nosotros are in a building, letting it period like a picture show, instead of immersing ourselves in contemplating a painting). He notes that buildings "are appropriated in a twofold manner: by and by perception" (p.xviii) With regards to utilize in that location is a political undertone in that without contemplation nosotros are made to empathize or use the building through habits. Benjamin adds, "As regards architecture, addiction determines to a large extent fifty-fifty optical reception." (p.xviii)

Benjamin argues this is something which motion-picture show has the potential to do — form habits of seeing the world, which in some way is an ideological performance, something we will discuss in side by side modules.

For Benjamin, it is precisely the addiction-formation potential in film's barrage of images that leave no room for contemplation, (what he calls the shock effect), which allows a distracted audience somehow critical, and therefore, potent for mass mobilization.

Fascism, aesthetics, and politics

I call back the portion is quite self explanatory. Fascists like Hitler, Marcos, and Duterte open up up avenues for the people to express their rage against the system without politically irresolute the arrangement of backer relations of production. This is what Benjamin means when fascists aestheticize politics. They requite you a means to aqueduct these sentiments, without doing annihilation virtually it.

Benjamin's challenge is that mass movements ought to reverse the equation by politicizing the aesthetic — or to exist more concrete, to politicize the sensible.

Some comments on the essay

I practise hold with Benjamin'southward primal assay that a shift happened in how we perceive objects nosotros telephone call fine art. His concept of aureola is a bit besides mystical for me, and I would rather utilise concepts derived from social forces and textile weather. I am a bit wary of notions such as cult and exhibition value, although it is undisputed that art objects of the past generally had a ritualistic role tied to religion.

As per his hypothesis on the political potential of moving-picture show, there is some possibility to information technology, but no art form tin can solely mobilize the masses on its own. People don't mobilize considering they were solely agitated. Masses of people will movement when they come across how they are affected by anti-people policies, their enemies are known to them, and they take some sense of what to practise next. All the same, I do remember that as a general rule, all art practices have potential to assist people go mobilized, but that is a topic for another day.

floreswastures.blogspot.com

Source: https://medium.com/@yarikagami/notes-on-walter-benjamins-the-work-of-art-in-the-age-of-mechanical-reproduction-for-my-arts1-5cb3885a8286

Share this post