Benjamin Response

In “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin discusses a shift in perception and its subsequent effects of the loss of “aura” through the mechanical reproduction of the work itself. This “aura” is something that a painting or other pre-modern work will have, whereas more modern works, such as photography or film, do not have this aura, as they are images of the image instead of the original.
            Right away, this sounds a lot like Aristotelian mimesis, with the focus on photos/videos being copies of the images themselves, as opposed to the paintings, which are original. This is a step beyond Aristotle’s belief, and is somewhat problematic, as paintings themselves are copies of images we see in the world (excluding abstract pieces).  This seems to lead to a “turtles all the way down” theory if one is to accept Benjamin’s ideas.

            Benjamin, however, also places positives on this loss of aura. Mainly that is places a politicalness on art, insomuch as that it reproducible images can be used for certain messages and meanings that they were previously not able to. Also, it allows for mass consumption of images and works as opposed to before where copies would not be readily available for large numbers of people to see.

            Personally, my main problem with Benjamin’s ideas is that works that can be mechanically reproduced are the cause of the loss of aura. Is it not true that for any work of art, no matter the media, can be mechanically reproduced in the modern society? For instance, the statue of David, can be mechanically reproduced. While one may acknowledge that a copy is not the original, if it is a correct copy, the sculpture can still have the impact on the viewer as it did before, even if it was not made at the same time as the original. The originality and authenticity do still exist within the piece of art. Furthermore, if the viewer does not know the sculpture they are looking at is a reproduction, the work itself holds the same authority and influence as the original, since, if it is an adept reproduction, will be able to convince the ready, simply from an aesthetic standpoint, that it IS the original work and subsequently carries the same weight. This idea applies to paintings and other mediums of art as well.

            Film and photography too, can be held to this idea. Does acknowledging that a film is not the original copy of it make it any less moving or impactful than it being the original? It is still a refined piece of work, and regardless of whether or not that viewer knows it is a copy or the original, it still holds the same impact if it is an effective piece of art. Yes, the mass reproduction of this media can lead to different messages being said or the politicization of art, but, at the same time, it does not matter whether or not I am watching my VHS copy of my favorite movie, my friends DVD copy of it, or a blu-ray version of it: If it is a copy of the original movie in its entirety, it will still have the same effect on me as the original format in which it was made. Also, the depreciating effect it has on me each subsequent viewing is not a product of the reproductions of the film, but rather, the same effect that viewing the same painting over and over has: eventually I will become somewhat desensitized to certain aspects of it or become familiar enough with it that it will not impact me as much.