Fast Art: Broken Images, in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Walter Benjamin begins his essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," with an ominous harbinger: "It would therefore be wrong to underestimate the value of such theses as a weapon . They brush aside a number of outmoded concepts, such as creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery--concepts whose un controlled (and at present almost uncontrollable) application would lead to a process of data in a Fascist sense" (431). Written in 1936 amid the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, Benjamin already recognized the implications of film and photography: these mediums had, and have, the potential to galvanize large populations, to seduce them with the illusion of truth, into committing acts of incredible thoughtlessness. For the first time, the divide between traditionally ideologically isolated populations--with different dialects, customs, and cultural activities--could be bridged by mass medium, to create a mob. Although there is no direct causation between the rise of film and the nationalistic fervor that led to the First and Second World Wars, film nonetheless laid the ground work, the potential, the substructure, for such atrocities to come to fruition. According the Benjamin, the public makes the mistake of misunderstanding film as facticity. In the present age, we take for granted the inherent discontinuities between an image and unequivocal fact. Like all representations, images show what the photographer's eye wants you to see. Whether consciously or unconsciously, a photographer imbues each image with a political slant. The verisimilar appearance of a photograph, or a film reel, takes out of the equation the necessary reflection all representations require. So, rather than taking a photograph as an interpretation of a situation, the viewer takes it to be incontrovertible. Images saturate the current atmosphere so much that vision, and by implication thought, has fundamentally changed. In the vein of Merleu-ponty, the production, distribution, and exposure of images has produced a new Philosophy of Vision. As sight-experience changes, the conception of art-making and art-viewing changes. The creation of the photographic medium, and its ostensible accessibility to anyone with a trigger finger, blurs the once clear delimitation between artist and viewer--the viewer says to themselves, "I can do that," and maybe they can; however, as Sartre tells us about writers, it is frivilous to think about what a dead artist could have done had s/he not died so young, because one cannot be judged upon their potential, only their actions. Thus, the amateur photographer or film-maker who says, "ah, I can do that," misunderstands their situation, because they in fact did not do that. Mr. Brainwash is a great example of this phenomenon. Not everyone can make art, nor should everyone be encouraged to do so. The accessibility of art encourages people to try their hand at art. The access of the public to a work of art means that everyone can have an opinion about it, everyone becomes a critique. The internet, especially, allows for an equal footing for all ideas, no matter how good or bad, informed or misinformed. Uncensored, the internet becomes a breading ground for misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Politically speaking, this podium causes a very dangerous situation. The anonymity of many voices exacerbates this issue. The speaker no longer takes responsibility for their actions, for the dissimulation of their bad ideas. The converse becomes true as well though, as we have seen with the Arab spring. The internet can be used as a protest-podium for marginalized groups, a place that often evades the censorship of parties being attacked. Benjamin never discusses the positive potential of this new accessibility, the instantaneous access to information, art. Of course, in 1936, there is no way he could have known to what extent images would literally take over our lives. It is as if we are all on the Truman Show, and we want someone to be watching. Our self-consciousness only leads to higher rates of conventionalism, rather than perpetual self-reflection. We want to be part of the mob, be part of the cool kids, which is perhaps why Hitler's propaganda was so successful. His administration was able to create the idea of unity, of greatness, of perfection. People bought this idea, they consumed it, they ate it up, only to realize that it was all just a show, just a ruse, just manipulation.
Karl Jaspers writes, in The Question of German Guilt, “Metaphysical guilt is the lack of absolute solidarity with the human being as such--an indelible claim beyond morally meaningful duty. This solidarity is violated by my presence at a wrong or a crime. It is not enough that I cautiously risk my life to prevent it; if it happens, and I was there, and if I survive where the other is killed, I know from a voice within myself: I am guilty of being still alive.” If nothing else, the image takes us farther away from one another because it convinces us that it is in fact bring us closer to the other--it is more real than the here and now, more real than the limits of my own vision, more real than the voice of the actor on the stage. Luckily, there continue to be art forms that cannot be reproduced--their evanescence becomes their greatest attribute. But, perhaps, this nostalgia I have for the creative, the unique, the irreproducible makes me the most susceptible victim to the imagined "aura," the imagined lingering cult value of an image. 

On "Private Property and Communism,"

In this essay, Marx attempts to articulate how the internalized and essentially appropriated obsession of owning, having private property alienates woman from herself: "All the physical and intellectual senses have been replaced by the simple estrangement of these senses--the sense of having. So that it might give birth to its inner wealth, human nature had to be reduced to this absolute poverty" (229). There is something fundamentally problematic about this perspective because it posits a fundamental, essential way of being. However, Marx qualifies this assertion by noting the way in which human, while creating an essence, reacts at the same time to the state of society: "just as society itself produces man as man, so it is produced by him" (228). The reciprocal relationship human engages in with society prevents any answer to the question "who begot the first man" (232). In that sense, Marx anticipates the Hermeneutic discipline (think Gadamer). He does not attempt to ground his analysis with an origin; instead, his analysis incites a ceaseless reflection upon the relationship humans has to their society, and, importantly, to themselves. He also limits his epistemology to sensuous experience. Rather than doing away with sensation, he respects and acknowledges its limitations, which directly anticipates 20th century phenomenology: "sense perception must be the basis of all science" (231). This movement reorients human beings understanding of sensation. Rather than sight, tough, taste, ect., being simply attributes that compliment experiences, Marx argues that they are the extent of experience. We cannot know anything about the world that has not been filtered through this lens. Seemingly, this implication frustrates the potential for objectivity, shown through Cartesianism and enlightenment empiricism; however, according to Marx, this in fact breaks down the barrier between Natural Science and Philosophy--and by extension, aesthetics. Furthermore, the consistency of sensation--from human to human--makes experience a social gathering. Art, too, then becomes a very social activity. Humans can share in the accomplishments of other humans, while simultaneously maintaining their individuality. This serves in large part as a response to caricatures of communism. This interpretation impedes efforts to create a diminutive account of communism proper. Communism becomes in fact a humanism (sorry Sartre, I stole it).

Art: politics

In his Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Benjamin observes how the relationship between authenticity and reproduction have developed over time, due to its importance of "time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be" (432).
In reference to aura, Benjamin defines it as "the unique phenomenon of a distance"(433). He says that in contemporary terms, aura has been decaying, because we have been overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction (434). To destroy an object's aura (to follow the mt rang with your eyes or the branch of a tree) is to have a new perception - one that promotes this "universal equality of things" - from the reproduction of the unique object itself. The original work of art is essential is as much as its ritual value - the location of its original use (434). The work of art reproduced by mechanical means (the photograph of it, the film of it, or the copying of the original painting) "becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility" (434). At the point when an artwork ceases to have the ability to be reproduced, artwork goes from being about "ritual" to being about "politics." People are able to see more clearly the picture of a statue that has been taken from the original location of the statue - inside the temple itself. Now that we can reproduce art so easily especially "photography and film", the function of art has shifted - it is now challenging man in a new way (435). The labels at the bottom of the paintings or the descriptive words of a photo necessary for a film present a new purpose for art - one that has political value for man. They become subjects of new interpretations and discussions for different audiences in different times and places.

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.

Textual Reflection on Benjamin

Benjamin begins his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by quoting Paul Valéry, setting up his argument on how innovations have always and will continue to "transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself" and changing our own perceptions of art (431).  He then addresses Marx's expectation of the future of art in the context of capitalism, that capitalism would "exploit the proletariat with increasing intensity... [and] create conditions which would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself" (431).  In the first section, Benjamin contends that any work of art can be reproduced, whether that is by manual or mechanical reproduction.  Throughout history, people have practiced the skill and craft by copying or imitating works of art, that which have already been made by man.  But with continual innovations, "mechanical reproduction of a work of art represents something new" (431).  As the process of reproduction becomes more efficient, the work of art becomes more immediate and accessible to the masses.  Before engraving, printing, photography, film, etc., one had to see the original work of art in its own time and place in history, something which every reproduction, no matter how perfect, will lack.  Benjamin calls this the 'aura' of the work of art, "that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction" (433).  Distance is necessary to our understanding of aura, according to Benjamin, for if we try to bring an object in nature or a work of art closer to ourselves by removing it from its original context, the aura is also removed from the object.  The are two social bases for this "decay of the aura," says Benjamin: 1) "the desire of contemporary masses to bring things 'closer' spatially and humanly," and 2) "overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction" (434).  At first, it seems as though he wants to argue against mechanical reproduction of art because of the uniqueness of a work of art due to its aura; however, Benjamin claims that "mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual" (434).  Now that mechanical reproduction is becoming increasingly common, especially today, his point that "the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility" (434).  However, at the end of the fourth section, Benjamin returns to Marx and capitalism, that once artistic production is less concerned with ritual, it is based on politics.  Throughout the rest of his essay, he discusses the difference epilogue, Benjamin discusses Fascism and war in relation to the aura and mechanical reproduction.  He says that "the destructiveness of war furnishes proof that society has not been mature enough to incorporate technology as its organ, that technology has not been sufficiently developed to cope with the elemental forces of society" (444).  After reading through Benjamin's appraisal of the mechanical reproductions of photography and film and then arriving at this end, it becomes much less obvious as to what he thinks of the destruction of the aura in the work of art.

Textual Reflection on Benjamin

Benjamin’s writing The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction opens with a Paul Valery quote that sets the tone of the essay. He says that the art created in the past differs from the art created in the presence and because we “cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power” (431) we must develop our understanding to fit the new context. Benjamin talks about the reproduction of art and how mechanical reproduction “represents something new” (431). Reproductions and works of art however are different in one key way. While the original work of art has a presence in time and space and a “unique existence at the place where it happens to be” (432), the reproduction does not. The originals possess an authenticity that cannot be replicated by reproduction is able to carry the original “into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself” (432). The original does not have to worry about authenticity but when a reproduction is made, the context of the original shifts. He uses this as a segue into talking about aura and the lack of it in reproduction. The aura is “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction” (433). Aura is influenced by both historical circumstances and nature so as the world evolves, the aura changes because human perception grows. As original works of art maintain their authenticity, they also vary from reproductions because they have an aura due to fact that “the uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition” (434). Benjamin raises the idea of ritual in connection with aura. Benjamin discusses ritual under a negative light and says that, “mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual” (434). This does not mean that the original artwork is ever completely separated for the ritual function. When authenticity ceases to apply, art transitions from being based on ritual to politics. Benjamin believes that pre-modern art is authentic because it is rooted in tradition. On the other hand, mechanical reproduction is a threat to the authenticity associated with the original work of art. The process of reproduction is the way a work of art looses its aura. Original art works are unique because they have a distance to them. We are forced to look at them away from ourselves. The advantage to mechanical reproduction is the access it offers us. The reproductions are directly accessible and are valued in “their exhibition value” (430) instead of a traditional sense. In other words, the reproductions are there to be seen while the importance of the original is the fact it exists. Benjamin talks about painting and photography. Painting has an aura but photography does not because a painting is original while photography is an image of the image. Also, a cameraman has the capability to intervene with what viewers see while a painter cannot do so. It seems as if Benjamin is in favor of the loss of aura and mechanical reproduction because there is room for interpretation. This allows a new way to appreciate art.

Mapping Viewer Movement in Museums

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/arts/artsspecial/arts-emotional-tug-is-best-experienced-alone-a-study-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&