The Work of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction

By quoting Paul Valéry’s “The Conquest of Ubiquity” in the mere beginning of his essay, Walter Benjamin introduces the “The Work of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction” as one with an insightful and prognostic value and announces its subject as the interrelation between art and technical progress.

In the body of the essay (divided into 15 parts), he examines the two manifestations of the technological development (the mechanical reproduction and the art of photography and film) and discusses the repercussions that those two phenomenons had on art in its traditional form. In this essay he introduces various new terms which he confronts with the terminology of the traditional art forms.

By putting the subject in a context of both Fascism and Communism in the essays preface, he gives it a strong critical approach, but also reveals his ideological standpoints.

Author starts by giving a historical overview of the reproduction techniques and states that although a work of art had always been reproducible, not until the 1900’s had it reached a point in which it could not only reproduce all works of art, but also have its own artistic process.

Further on, Benjamin explains how lack of the “unique existance” and “authenticity” in the nature of an art reproduction causes the “decay of the aura”. The artwork is detached from tradition and has a “mass existence” instead. The “decay of aura” is also caused by socially determined changes in the human perception. Here he gives examples of circumstances which in (then) contemporary society caused works of art to loose their “aura”. According to Benjamin, aura originates in ritual (magical, religious or secularized cult), and by reproduction the work of art is getting detached from its dependence on ritual and starts to rely on another practise - politics. With the further decay of the aura, the work of art looses its cult value and increases the exhibition value. This allows art a completely new function. Photography almost entirely displaces the cult value with the exhibition one.

Problems with the interpretation of these new media lingered while the theoreticians struggled to explain photography and film in traditional terms of art, instead of considering the transformation of its whole nature by this new form of art.

Since the camera and film editing are not respecting the performance as a whole, actor can’t adjust to the audience. Because of the films fragments set in logical rather than temporal order, performance of a film actor isn’t here and now and his constant awareness of the camera and other equipment in the studio, causes his aura to vanish. Technical reproduction in film art has the power to change reactions of the audience towards art from being hostile, while appreciating the work of art for its cult value, into a progressive one, while dealing with the new art form. Film audience takes on the role of critics more easily, while with the appearance of the documentary film, anyone can become a movie actor, by which the art roles stop being exclusive. Benjamin sees the significance of the film camera not only in art domain, but in science also. It can enable the deeper understanding of human actions. “Distraction” becomes as a new form of participation produced by film. It is a reaction of opposite social behaviour from contemplation, which is present while one consumes the traditional work of art.

In the epilogue the author concludes the thought begun in the Preface by giving his essay’s subject a political/ideological connotation. Fascism role is to render aesthetic in political life, while communism responds by politicizing art.

References:

Benjamin, W., 1936, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Valéry, P., 1928, La conquête de l’ubiquité