The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility Walter Benjamin Aura

1935 essay by Walter Benjamin

In "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), Walter Benjamin addresses the artistic and cultural, social, economic, and political functions of art in a capitalist society.

"The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), by Walter Benjamin, is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of an objet d'art.^[1] That in the historic period of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin's essay presents a theory of fine art that is "useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a mass-civilisation society.^[two]

The discipline and themes of Benjamin'southward essay: the aura of a work of art; the creative authenticity of the artefact; its cultural authorisation; and the aestheticization of politics for the production of art, became resources for research in the fields of fine art history and architectural theory, cultural studies and media theory.^[3]

The original essay, "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility", was published in three editions: (i) the High german edition, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in 1935; (2) the French edition, Fifty'œuvre d'art à l'époque de sa reproduction mécanisée, in 1936; and (3) the German revised edition in 1939, from which derive the contemporary English translations of the essay titled "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction".^[4]

Summary [edit]

In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) Walter Benjamin presents the thematic basis for a theory of art by quoting the essay "The Conquest of Ubiquity" (1928), by Paul Valéry, to establish how works of art created and developed in past eras are different from contemporary works of art; that the understanding and treatment of art and of artistic technique must progressively develop in guild to understand a work of fine art in the context of the modern time.

Our fine arts were adult, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the nowadays, past men whose power of activeness upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. Simply the amazing growth of our techniques, the adjustability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, go far a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a concrete component which tin no longer be considered or treated as information technology used to be, which cannot remain unaffected past our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor infinite nor fourth dimension has been what information technology was from time immemorial. Nosotros must expect not bad innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing near an astonishing change in our very notion of art.^[5]

Creative production [edit]

In the Preface, Benjamin presents Marxist analyses of the organisation of a backer society and establishes the place of the arts in the public sphere and in the individual sphere. He and so explains the socio-economic conditions to extrapolate developments that further the economic exploitation of the proletariat, whence arise the social conditions that would abolish capitalism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of art is not an exclusively modernistic human action, citing examples such every bit artists manually copying the work of a primary creative person. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the means for the mechanical reproduction of art, and their effects upon society's valuation of a piece of work of art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the stamp mill in Ancient Greece; and the modern arts of woodcut relief-printing, engraving, etching, lithography, and photography, all of which are techniques of mass production that permit greater accuracy in reproducing a piece of work of art.^[6]

Actuality [edit]

The aura of a piece of work of fine art derives from authenticity (uniqueness) and locale (concrete and cultural); Benjamin explains that "even the most perfect reproduction of a work of fine art is lacking in one element: Its presence in time and space, its unique being at the place where information technology happens to be" located. He writes that the "sphere of [artistic] authenticity is outside the technical [sphere]" of mechanised reproduction.^[7] Therefore, the original work of art is an objet d'art independent of the mechanically accurate reproduction; yet, by changing the cultural context of where the artwork is located, the existence of the mechanical copy diminishes the aesthetic value of the original work of art. In that manner, the aureola—the unique aesthetic authority of a piece of work of art—is absent-minded from the mechanically produced copy.^[8]

Value: cult and exhibition [edit]

Regarding the social functions of an artefact, Benjamin said that "Works of art are received and valued on different planes. Ii polar types stand up out; with one, the accent is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work. Artistic product begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve in a cult. One may presume that what mattered was their existence, non their being on view."^[9] The cult value of religious art is that "sure statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella; certain madonnas remain covered virtually all yr round; certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on footing level."^[10] In practice, the diminished cult value of a religious artefact (an icon no longer venerated) increases the artefact's exhibition value as fine art created for the spectators' appreciation, because "it is easier to exhibit a portrait bust, that tin can be sent here and there [to museums], than to exhibit the statue of a divinity that has its stock-still identify in the interior of a temple."^[11]

The mechanical reproduction of a piece of work of fine art voids its cult value, considering removal from a fixed, private space (a temple) and placement in mobile, public space (a museum) allows exhibiting the art to many spectators.^[12] Further explaining the transition from cult value to exhibition value, Benjamin said that in "the photographic image, exhibition value, for the first time, shows its superiority to cult value."^[13] In emphasising exhibition value, "the work of art becomes a cosmos with entirely new functions," which "later on may be recognized as incidental" to the original purpose for which the creative person created the Objet d'art.^[14]

As a medium of artistic product, the cinema (moving pictures) does non create cult value for the motion flick, itself, because "the audience'southward identification with the thespian is really an identification with the photographic camera. Consequently, the audience takes the position of the camera; its approach is that of testing. This is non the arroyo to which cult values may be exposed." Therefore, "the film makes the cult value recede into the background, not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but also by the fact that, at the movies, this [critical] position requires no attention."^[fifteen]

Art every bit politics [edit]

The social value of a piece of work of art changes as a society alter their value systems; thus the changes in artistic styles and in the cultural tastes of the public follow "the manner in which human sense-perception is organized [and] the [artistic] medium in which it is accomplished, [which are] determined not simply past Nature, but past historical circumstances, as well."^[7] Despite the socio-cultural effects of mass-produced, reproduction-art upon the aura of the original work of fine art, Benjamin said that "the uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being embedded in the fabric of tradition," which separates the original work of art from the reproduction.^[vii] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of art besides emancipated "the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual,"^[7] thereby increasing the social value of exhibiting works of art, which practice progressed from the private sphere of life, the owner'south enjoyment of the aesthetics of the artefacts (commonly High Art), to the public sphere of life, wherein the public enjoy the same aesthetics in an art gallery.

Influence [edit]

In the late-twentieth-century television program Ways of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and developed the themes of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explain the contemporary representations of social grade and racial degree inherent to the politics and production of art. That in transforming a work of art into a commodity, the modernistic means of artistic production and of artistic reproduction accept destroyed the aesthetic, cultural, and political dominance of art: "For the start fourth dimension e'er, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free," because they are commercial products that lack the aura of authenticity of the original objet d'art.^[16]

See also [edit]

• Aestheticization of politics
• Art for art'south sake

References [edit]

1. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects (2011) Routledge, London, p. 0000.
2. ^ Scannell, Paddy. (2003) "Benjamin Contextualized: On 'The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction'" in Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are In that location Whatever? Should There Be? How Near These?, Katz et al. (Eds.) Polity Printing, Cambridge. ISBN 9780745629346. pp. 74–89.
3. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects, Routledge, London, 2011.
4. ^ Notes on Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction", a commentary by Gareth Griffiths, Aalto University, 2011. ^{[ permanent expressionless link ]}
5. ^ Paul Valéry, La Conquête de fifty'ubiquité (1928)
6. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 01.
7. ^ ^{a b c d} Walter Benjamin (1968). Hannah Arendt (ed.). "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction," Illuminations . London: Fontana. pp. 214–18. ISBN9781407085500.
8. ^ Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2008). "Benjamin'southward Aura," Critical Research No. 34 (Winter 2008)
9. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
10. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
11. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
12. ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Section Ii". Samizdat Online. 2016-07-20. Retrieved 2020-05-22 .
13. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
14. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
15. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 5–half-dozen.
16. ^ Berger, John. Means of Seeing. Penguin Books, London, 1972, pp. 32–34.

External links [edit]

• Complete text of the essay, translated
• Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (1932-1941) - Download the original text in French, "Fifty'œuvre d'art à l'époque de sa reproduction méchanisée," in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung Jahrgang V, Félix Alcan, Paris, 1936, pp. forty–68 (23MB)
• Complete text in German (in German language)
• Partial text of the essay, with commentary by Detlev Schöttker (in German)
• A comment to the essay on "diségno"

polanskyaciatur.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction

Share this post