Why Was the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Written

Notes on Walter Benjamin'southward The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction for my ARTS1 students

I volition effort my best to condense what I think are pertinent points to the give-and-take of agreement art through developments in production. I volition also be adding points from other thinkers who I think have contributions to the topic.

As a disclaimer, I would similar to note that I personally am not a Benjaminian/Benjamist as he does tend to mix bits of theory from Theodor Adorno'southward critical theory, Bertolt Brecht's Marxism, and Jewish mysticism. Our usage of theory must ever exist under the dictum that this theory must coincide with cloth reality for information technology to exist true; and to know if information technology is true, we must be able to use this concept to make changes in material reality.

If there is one affair you should have from this class, it is that whatsoever theory is idea to yous from the humanities and social sciences must exist used to change the world, non to interpret it.

Now, allow u.s. meet where Benjamin tin be useful for u.s.a..

A review of the dialectics of production and civilisation

The essay is divided into 15 parts, including a preface, epilogue, and endnotes. The preface begins with statements regarding Marx'south critique of backer product. The terms superstructure and substructure shouldn't surprise you. When Benjamin says:

"The transformation of the superstructure, which takes identify far more slowly

than that of the substructure, has taken more than half a century to manifest in

all areas of culture the change in the conditions of production." (p.one)

He is simply referring to the relationship between production and culture we accept mentioned in Part v of Lecture Notes 1. The superstructure corresponds to political institutions, cultural attitudes and practices, etc. Meanwhile, the substructure refers to the overall manner of product, which is fabricated up of the forces & relations of production.

We have briefly explained in Lecture Notes 1 how while generally the way of production (with the forces equally the ascendant gene) advances society forward, there comes a bespeak where the relations of production hinder it — necessitating a alter in the relations through superstructural changes (political-cultural movements/revolutions).

Benjamin as well notes in part iii that "during long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity'southward unabridged mode of beingness. " This is a properly Marxist thought which coincides with reality. There is no inherent "human nature". Equally Marx and Engels say in The High german Ideology:

"The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first direct interwoven with the textile activity and the fabric intercourse of men, the linguistic communication of real life…The aforementioned applies to mental product as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, organized religion, metaphysics, etc. of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. — existent, agile men, as they are conditioned by a definite evolution of their productive forces and of the intercourse respective to these, up to its furthest forms. "

Thus we come across that the general shift in our awareness and conception of the fine art object is shaped by the development of the productive forces (in Benjamin's instance the rise of photography and motion picture equally types of mechanical reproduction.) This is perhaps the fundamental theory in Benjamin'south essay, albeit not his originally.

Mechanical reproduction and the loss of aura

While it is as Benjamin says, that art objects are usually reproducible, the mechanical reproduction of art objects past the late 19th-early 20th century Europe initiated a shift in our agreement and perception of fine art. This fundamental thesis coincides with our understanding of history as primarily advanced by the forces of production (in this case mechanical reproduction as well as technologies similar the photographic camera), how it initiates changes in cultural forms (such equally the birth of photography and movie theatre), and how these cultural forms in the superstructure effect changes in people in guild to change the style a society's mode of product is configured (this is Benjamin'south hypothesis on photography and moving-picture show's potential for emancipatory politics to advance gild to a higher stage than capitalism).

Kickoff, mechanical reproduction tin bring out aspects of the original that manual reproduction could not (ex. Photographs could resize/crop/edit the colors of a painting in ways manually doing this could not). 2d, mechanical reproduction can copy the (usually literary/visual fine art object) into spaces outside of the original context. Information technology is in this displacement that Benjamin goes on about the object losing its presence or "aura."

And then what is aureola? Well the aura of an art object has something to do with the specific located-ness or presence of the object in a specific space. With regards to infinite, Benjamin uses the notion of closeness and altitude. The art object "gains" more aura the more than "afar" it is from you, in a sense that yous socially cannot perceive information technology upwards shut. We see this especially in galleries where you literally cannot go up very close to paintings or sculptures, peculiarly the heavily valued ones. These objects accept aura. Reproductions of these objects equally photographs in other merchandise or in other media remove this distance between you and the object. Aura is diminished.

Well, I for 1 think this notion is analogous to a lot of concepts such as the sublime — or that feeling of your senses existence overwhelmed past something like watching a storm at body of water unfold from your window, a great mountainside view, a painting that stirs strong emotions from you lot for some reason, a song that makes you cry without you understanding why, etc. It's an idea that, funnily enough, actually gained traction in — you guessed information technology, 18th century Europe, with the likes of Immanuel Kant. The sublime in fine art usually has something to exercise with altitude as well.

This notion of aura is tied to concepts of presence, temporality, uniqueness, and authenticity. Benjamin does note that the uniqueness of an fine art object is tied to its being "embedded in the fabric of tradition" then goes on to equate this uniqueness to aura. I estimate if we were to Philippinize the term, aura could very roughly be equated to "dating" o yung dating nung art object sa yo. Encapsulated in this is a whole web of contexts that envelop the actual object itself, that is non all the same our present business.

Still, Benjamin'south discussion on aura and uniqueness shifts to his notion of cult-value (which he seems to be borrowing both from Hegel and Marx).

A little bit more on dialectics, and the cult

Benjamin goes on to discuss that for a long period of time, the art object was normally continued to some course of ritual, that even if art practices continue outside the context of organized organized religion, they now role in what Benjamin calls "the secular cult of Beauty" from which nosotros exercise get our elitist definitions of art equally something sublime, cute, etc. Benjamin says:

"It is meaning that the beingness of the work of art with reference to its aura is never entirely separated from its ritual function. In other words, the unique value of the "authentic" work of art has its footing in ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic basis, however remote, is yet recognizable as secularized ritual even in the most profane forms of the cult of beauty.6 The secular cult of dazzler, developed during the Renaissance and prevailing for iii centuries, clearly showed that ritualistic ground in its decline and the get-go deep crisis which befell it. " (p. 6)

Regarding the cult, Benjamin says that art is appreciated on two different poles: cult value, and exhibition value. Cult value refers again to that ritualistic role where the art object becomes a vessel/symbol/marker for worship or veneration which isn't necessarily equivalent to organized religion. Benjamin describes how early on photography still focused on portraits, to which in some extent retained the chemical element of cult value in that, "The cult of remembrance of loved ones, absent or dead, offers a concluding refuse for the cult value of the moving picture. For the last time the aura emanates from the early photographs in the fleeting expression of a human being face up. This is what constitutes their melancholy, incomparable beauty." (p.viii)

However, modernistic fine art works are generally shifting towards the exhibition value. What this generally means is that there is now a shift in the function of new fine art practices away from the ritualistic or cult. I don't think even Benjamin was fully aware of what information technology meant. Information technology could exist a foreshadowing of the post-structuralist gesture wherein without the ballast of tradition and ritual chaining the object to be read or appreciated in a sure way, nosotros alive in a time where our appreciation of an object is up to gratis play (though I argue at that place are however existence social forces that skew our means of valuing a work despite this relative "liberating" of the signification of an object).

One matter we should annotation is that Benjamin is lifting from Hegel hither. Both in his usage of cult/exhibition value, and generally rules of dialectic every bit regards to how things change, which are more useful to us. Checking his 8th endnote, we find:

"Yet in Hegel this polarity (cult-value and exhibition-value) announces itself equally clearly as possible inside the limits of Idealism. We quote from his Philosophy of History…"

Benjamin also takes from the dialectical nature of how things develop — that is, things undergo both quantitative and qualitative changes. This is something that is used in the text.

This concept of quantitative and qualitative alter tin can be materially proven with how quantitative changes will eventually change matter or a phenomenon qualitatively. If one quantitatively changes the number of molecules in a certain chemical compound, qualitative changes happen and it becomes a different compound altogether. Also, as a political or cultural motility quantitatively takes agree over larger numbers of people, this will result in a qualitative change in the disposition of social forces.

Benjamin uses this primal law in dialectics to testify that qualitative changes in the technological product resulted in new fine art practices, and that quantitative shift from the cult to the exhibitionary is resulting in a qualitative modify in the "nature" of art — or from our point of view, a alter in the conceptualization and perception of the art object.

While quantitative and qualitative changes in dialectics is something we can use in our daily lives every bit this can exist proven materially, the notion of cult and exhibition are taken from the idealist side of Hegel. And while all ideas have a material basis, they are not necessarily materially true.

Mechanical reproduction, picture show, perception, and politics

A big clamper of the essay at present follows Benjamin'due south thoughts on how pic and photography, equally art practices birthed by mechanical reproduction, change our perception — or in his words, how they've fundamentally changed the "nature" of art itself, also every bit their political potential.

While this department is not equally pertinent to our course, a cursory summary will do every bit the writing style here gets a bit chaotic.

Benjamin noted that intellectuals of his twenty-four hours were wrong to endeavor and subsume film and photography into the ritualistic art. They were asking the incorrect question. Information technology wasn't nigh if photography was art or not. They should've asked how photography changed how art is.

Next, Benjamin goes into detail about comparing theater and film with regards to the actors as well as the audition with regards to the camera. While the performance of a phase player is fabricated nowadays mostly past the thespian himself, it is the camera which presents the performance of the screen actor.

Benjamin notes several other differences regarding the loss of aura in a screen actor's performance while building upwards the cult of the pic star outside of the actual film object (through promotion work, the earth of showbiz, etc).

The cameraman and painter are compared through the analogy of a surgeon (the cameraman) who goes in-depth (close up) into the flesh of society and the sorcerer (the painter) who makes a prognosis of the trunk from a distance. The pictures of the painter are total, while those of a cameraman are multiple and fragmented.

Benjamin argues how much more useful the images of film are to how contemporary human being views the world, in that these images (seemingly, I might add) a view of reality that doesn't highlight its contraptions the way painting does. Picture is able to show united states different aspects of reality which our naked eyes tin't perceive ordinarily. Equally Benjamin says, "filmed behavior lends itself more readily to analysis because of its incomparably more precise statements of the situation."

Peradventure the nearly conceptually useful office in this half of the essay lies with Benjamin's notion of the masses every bit distracted critics, and its political potential. To sum it upward, considering film lacks the style stage actors tin can connect with their audiences, the viewers are watching from the gaze of the photographic camera, putting them in a position of somewhat akin to a critic.

Benjamin notes film, much like other fields like sports and literature, has developed such that the audiences who partake in it go sort of experts in it. Back in Benjamin's mean solar day it is true that readers of literary textile and news could as well send in their material to the press for publication. Today, the growth is unprecedented. People tin literally comment on just almost any cultural slice or practice in social media — like critics. This isn't looked down by Benjamin. In fact, he kind of celebrates this. He notes that in that location is a fusion between the enjoyment of the work and the orientation of experts (critic/commentator). The masses' disquisitional and the receptive modes intersect.

Ane reason for this is that picture is consumed en masse. Different the painting which is more generally appreciated through private contemplation, the individual's reception to movie is affected past the experience of other people who view it. For Benjamin, paintings cannot give a good aesthetic experience for a collective public the way films tin can, or as he states, compages.

Benjamin then, through architecture as an fine art form which we practice not contemplate but "distractedly" employ, (in a sense that we are in a building, letting it catamenia like a film, instead of immersing ourselves in contemplating a painting). He notes that buildings "are appropriated in a twofold manner: by and by perception" (p.xviii) With regards to use there is a political undertone in that without contemplation nosotros are made to understand or use the building through habits. Benjamin adds, "As regards compages, habit determines to a large extent fifty-fifty optical reception." (p.18)

Benjamin argues this is something which film has the potential to exercise — form habits of seeing the world, which in some manner is an ideological operation, something we will hash out in side by side modules.

For Benjamin, it is precisely the habit-formation potential in film's avalanche of images that exit no room for contemplation, (what he calls the daze result), which allows a distracted audience somehow disquisitional, and therefore, potent for mass mobilization.

Fascism, aesthetics, and politics

I think the portion is quite self explanatory. Fascists similar Hitler, Marcos, and Duterte open up avenues for the people to express their rage against the system without politically irresolute the system of backer relations of production. This is what Benjamin means when fascists aestheticize politics. They give you lot a ways to channel these sentiments, without doing anything most it.

Benjamin's challenge is that mass movements ought to contrary the equation by politicizing the aesthetic — or to be more concrete, to politicize the sensible.

Some comments on the essay

I do agree with Benjamin'south fundamental assay that a shift happened in how nosotros perceive objects we call art. His concept of aureola is a bit as well mystical for me, and I would rather use concepts derived from social forces and material atmospheric condition. I am a fleck wary of notions such as cult and exhibition value, although it is undisputed that art objects of the past generally had a ritualistic function tied to religion.

As per his hypothesis on the political potential of film, there is some possibility to it, merely no art form can solely mobilize the masses on its own. People don't mobilize because they were solely agitated. Masses of people will motility when they see how they are affected by anti-people policies, their enemies are known to them, and they have some sense of what to do next. However, I do remember that every bit a general rule, all art practices have potential to help people get mobilized, but that is a topic for another day.

oliversoutructench.blogspot.com

Source: https://medium.com/@yarikagami/notes-on-walter-benjamins-the-work-of-art-in-the-age-of-mechanical-reproduction-for-my-arts1-5cb3885a8286