Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin

    Uploaded by

    api-415215337
    Walter Benjamin's 1935 work The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction analyzed how mechanical reproduction fundamentally changed art by destroying the "aura" of authenticity and ritual value of the original work. He argued that mechanical reproduction, such as photography and film, allowed for mass dissemination of art but removed art's cult or ritual value by making it reproducible. While this reduced art's authority over viewers, it also empowered viewers to engage with art outside of traditional contexts and potentially use reproduced art for political purposes to raise class consciousness. Overall, Benjamin believed the aura's destruction could be a positive development if used to mobilize mass audiences, though he was skeptical that capitalism would allow this.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin

    Uploaded by

    api-415215337
    81 views5 pages
    Walter Benjamin's 1935 work The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction analyzed how mechanical reproduction fundamentally changed art by destroying the "aura" of authenticity and ritual value of the original work. He argued that mechanical reproduction, such as photography and film, allowed for mass dissemination of art but removed art's cult or ritual value by making it reproducible. While this reduced art's authority over viewers, it also empowered viewers to engage with art outside of traditional contexts and potentially use reproduced art for political purposes to raise class consciousness. Overall, Benjamin believed the aura's destruction could be a positive development if used to mobilize mass audiences, though he was skeptical that capitalism would allow this.

    Original Title

    falter

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Walter Benjamin's 1935 work The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction analyzed how mechanical reproduction fundamentally changed art by destroying the "aura" of authenticity and ritual value of the original work. He argued that mechanical reproduction, such as photography and film, allowed for mass dissemination of art but removed art's cult or ritual value by making it reproducible. While this reduced art's authority over viewers, it also empowered viewers to engage with art outside of traditional contexts and potentially use reproduced art for political purposes to raise class consciousness. Overall, Benjamin believed the aura's destruction could be a positive development if used to mobilize mass audiences, though he was skeptical that capitalism would allow this.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views5 pages

    The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin

    Uploaded by

    api-415215337
    Walter Benjamin's 1935 work The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction analyzed how mechanical reproduction fundamentally changed art by destroying the "aura" of authenticity and ritual value of the original work. He argued that mechanical reproduction, such as photography and film, allowed for mass dissemination of art but removed art's cult or ritual value by making it reproducible. While this reduced art's authority over viewers, it also empowered viewers to engage with art outside of traditional contexts and potentially use reproduced art for political purposes to raise class consciousness. Overall, Benjamin believed the aura's destruction could be a positive development if used to mobilize mass audiences, though he was skeptical that capitalism would allow this.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    Savanna Falter

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

    November 2, 2016
    In 1935, Walter Benjamin wrote his pioneering work on the age of mechanical

    reproduction. Using Marx as the base, his rhetoric has become reality in today’s neoliberal

    capitalist society. Art has always been reproducible in some way, shape, or form, but never

    before had it been reproduced mechanically. Around 1900, mechanical reproduction became the

    standard of reproducing art. This type of reproduction, Benjamin argues, inherently changed the

    way art is created and understood.

    Benjamin’s theory states that original pieces of art have authenticity—a historical

    testimony that speaks to its individual unique existence. Authenticity is not reproducible and

    therefore the original piece has an “aura” that is inherently destroyed when mechanically

    reproduced. Benjamin argues two critical points: first that mechanical reproduction is “more

    independent” from the original than manual reproduction; second that mechanical reproduction

    allows the original to reach others who wouldn’t be able to physically experience it, therefore

    questioning its ‘historical testimony’ (3).

    Although the quality of the original depletes with copies being made, Benjamin states,

    “what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the

    object.” The traditional value of the object is destroyed through mechanical reproduction and

    therefore it’s authority over people. By shattering its tradition, it allows a viewer to “reactivate”

    the object in her own situation, giving the viewer control. The object’s ritual or cult function is

    never separated unless it is reproduced mechanically; “the unique value of the ‘authentic’ work

    of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value.” (4) The “decay of the aura” can

    be used to move art from its cult to exhibition values. “By the absolute emphasis on its exhibition

    value the work of art becomes a creation with entirely new functions, …the artistic function,
    later may be recognized as incidental.” (5) “Pure” art has no social function or category. By

    destroying the aura, its ritual function, and its cult value, art can be based in politics.

    Benjamin’s main assertion, which many readers tend to not understand, is that he sees the

    loss of the aura as a positive, in which the ritual function that would control the masses could

    therefore be used politically to wake people up and into action. “The adjustment of reality to the

    masses and of the masses to reality is a process of unlimited scope, as much for thinking as for

    perception.” (4) Photography, film, and any form of mechanical reproduction allows the viewer

    to challenge the ideas that previously were so easily forced upon her. “They stir the viewer; he

    feels challenged by them in a new way.” (6) Mechanical reproduction can be used to create

    political art that allows the masses to express themselves—to fight back against the forces that

    be.

    Focusing on photography and film, Benjamin believes the question whether photography

    is art is irrelevant. The true question is whether the invention of photography transformed the

    nature of art. Benjamin argues that it did. Photography allows the viewer to see things the eye

    cannot or would not have seen before. The same question was asked with film, in which he

    responded, saying that film cannot be seen as art until its ritual elements are found. (7) Moving

    forward, actors on a stage have aura, but the mechanical reproduction (film) destroys their aura

    and portrays them as film stars. While the actor is experienced directly by the audience, by a

    person, the screen actor cannot adjust her performance to cater to the audience’s specific needs

    because of the camera. Film has no aura and therefore can become the art of the masses.

    Capitalism uses film as a vehicle to distract the public with an illusion.

    Lastly, Benjamin makes the connection between Fascism and war to mechanical

    reproduction in art. “Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without
    affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate.” (14) Fascism struggles to

    give the masses a way to express themselves and therefore distracting them from what is their

    right. Benjamin states that only war can activate today’s technology while sustaining the class

    and property system. Fascism, however, is only aestheticizing politics, while Communism and

    Socialism attempt to politicize art in order to create change among the masses.

    After reading this for the third time, I believe I have finally wrapped my mind around

    Benjamin’s thesis of mechanical reproduction. From his conclusions I have many questions that

    pertain to our current reality concerning reproduction, such as—Is the Obama “Hope” poster an

    aestheticization or an example of political art? (I believe its aestheticization because it doesn’t

    challenge the current class system in our society.) Did the invention of sound film affect the way

    film was received by audiences? (To an extent, yes. But not in the sense that film as a whole

    changed society and how it views art.) Concerning Benjamin’s paragraph on writing and the

    closing of the gap between author and viewer, how has this changed since the creation of the

    Internet, social media, and blogging? (Anyone can be an author, and everyone’s opinion, in most

    cases, can ‘matter.’) How has reality television, even television as a whole, affected how society

    views art and what would Benjamin’s opinion be concerning it? (Arguably, he would enjoy that

    TV has brought film and shows to a much larger population but would argue it isn’t being used

    in a way to wake people up—another capitalistic illusion.)

    Concerning his section about Dada, I think he made a great connection between

    reproduction and their work attempting to destroy the aura and ritual value, “to outrage the

    public.” (12) One comment he made, which I do not completely agree with, is “Dadaism

    attempted to create by pictorial—and literary—means the effects which the public today seeks in

    the film.” (12) What I do not understand is that later on in another paragraph he states that
    Dadaism attempted to sacrifice market values (true) which are characteristic in film. Is Benjamin

    arguing that the public seeks something that has the destruction of aura but also a market value?

    “The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one.” (13) The public needs to be woken up.

    Even with Benjamin’s genius examination of mechanical reproduction in art, society has plunged

    deeper and deeper into the capitalistic illusion and therefore deeper into slumber.

    You might also like