Required Reading for Tuesday, Sept. 22: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, by Walter Benjamin. (Translated by J.A. Underwood). Alternatively, you can read this more newly-adopted translation, The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, (Translated from Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technicshen Reproduzierbarkeit [1936] Gesammelte Schriften I, vol. 2, p. 431-508 by Zohn and Jephcott)
Blog Questions: In what ways is Walter Benjamin saying that our experience of the "art object" is diminished by the tools of mechanical reproduction (photography and film)? In what ways is he saying that our experience of the art object is expanded by these new tools? Blog your response to these two questions by "commenting" on this post, or on each other's comments.
Posted by Sarah Drury at 9:16 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Benjamin seems to feel that the mass reproduction of art through modern advances and the overall mass response is, for the most part, negative. He makes the argument that the artist gets lost in their painting, making it a part of them. When this happens, the painting is a pure representation of the artist. when that same painting gets mass produced it loses the natural connection and spirit it had to its original creator. In the film sense, he says that we continue to overload imagery into film as the individual images lose their power. Benjamin briefly said the same thing about actors. Actors who are subtle and leave a lot to the viewer's imagination often put on a better performance. The only argument I found from him for the positive side of artistic reproduction is that it becomes more readily available and the art receives more of a reaction as it hits a larger mass audience.
ReplyDeleteWalter Benjamin’s essay felt a little outdated to me because of how long ago it was written and how different the ideas of art and reproduction of art can be in this modern technological age, but he makes some valid and interesting points. He acknowledges that reproduction has always been a principle within art, especially after mechanical reproduction came around, but decides that even when a reproduction is perfect, it lacks something that the original has which is “its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” Basically he suggests that reproducing a piece of art jeopardizes its authority, or as he later expands it to be its “aura”, where the uniqueness of the original piece of art that was constructed by the artist himself out of his own creative desires is lost in a reproduction that is less personal to the piece of art.
ReplyDeleteWalter Benjamin, in some ways begrudgingly, admits there are positive elements to reproduction, namely that it’ll allow the piece of art to reach wider amounts of people (though he suggests the farther a reproduction is from the original, the less of an “aura” is has). He does have positive things to say in general about the art of photography and film and suggests that even if it’s not as “complete” as the regular piece of art, photography can lend the photographers perspective onto the piece of art and approach it in his own unique way. Personally, I don’t feel that photography or reproduction will necessarily rob anyone of their own perspective on the piece of art, and one can always go out and see the original piece of art if they so feel like it anyways.
I can understand why Benjamin is so critical about the age of photography based on the time frame in which he wrote this. He felt that art was turning more political with the ability to reproduce works of art through photography. Even though this is true he still felt that photography was able to include the masses because everyone can take a picture and everyone can put themselves within the picture that is being taken. When you look at a photograph you place yourself in that setting and time to really get a good feel for what the photographer is trying to communicate. With film people are given the opportunity to escape their everyday lives and in a way feel safe. Benjamin talks about how people have been for the most part our idea of reality has stayed constant. Film changes this for the hour and a half to two hours that we sit in the seats at a theatre or in our homes to watch other people living lives we only dream about. This to me is art. The ability to let the viewer to lose themselves within your work and picture what you are seeing.
ReplyDeleteEverything and anything in our current society can be seen as art. Marshall McLuhan has a theory that the medium is the message. It is not what we receive but how we receive it that affects the art that affects us. An ‘aura’ is important to art. It’s about the reasoning for the art. The perception intended from a major Hollywood film verses an independent film definitely differs and affects the ‘aura’, which affects the audience.
ReplyDeleteAlso, some professionals may be aggravated of how easy it is becoming to be a photographer or filmmaker due to technology. Now anyone can do it. Some may find it easier on their profession too.
Like we said with the Flash Mobs, seeing and experiencing art in person is one of the realest forms of it. We are forced to recognize the art, which can differ our perceptions and the reasoning behind it oppose to art we view, by choice.
Walter Benjamin argues that the work of art is distinguished from a reproduction by the here and now of the artwork. When discussing both film and photography, Benjamin suggests that these two mediums erase the purity of the art.
ReplyDeleteWhen photographing art Benjamin suggests that people who do not experience the art first hand cannot truly appreciate it. A photograph or replica does not capture the artist's creativity as it was while he was actually creating the piece. In reference to film, Benjamin mentions that rather than appreciating a single image, so many images are processed together that powerful images are lost in the shuffle. Although Benjamin does recognize the positive aspects of mass produced art, he still points out the bad over the good in this case.
Walter Benjamin did not find it true that a reproduction of artwork could be just as inspirational as the original. He thought that any replica of an "art object" could be taking by photo or film and in doing so loosing the sense of what it really is. That the only way to truly experience art is to witness the originality of it. That no machine can show you a true work of art.
ReplyDelete