Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Walter Benjamin

1935 essay by Walter Benjamin

In "The Work of Fine 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 Fine art in the Age 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.^[ane] That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absenteeism 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 art that is "useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a mass-culture gild.^[2]

The subject and themes of Benjamin'south essay: the aura of a work of art; the artistic authenticity of the artefact; its cultural authority; and the aestheticization of politics for the production of art, became resources for research in the fields of art history and architectural theory, cultural studies and media theory.^[iii]

The original essay, "The 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; (ii) the French edition, L'œuvre d'art à l'époque de sa reproduction mécanisée, in 1936; and (3) the High german revised edition in 1939, from which derive the contemporary English translations of the essay titled "The Piece of work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction".^[iv]

Summary [edit]

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

Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose ability of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. Simply the astonishing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient arts and crafts of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which tin no longer be considered or treated every bit it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting creative invention itself and perhaps even bringing well-nigh an amazing change in our very notion of art.^[five]

Creative production [edit]

In the Preface, Benjamin presents Marxist analyses of the organisation of a capitalist society and establishes the place of the arts in the public sphere and in the individual sphere. He and so explains the socio-economic atmospheric condition to extrapolate developments that further the economic exploitation of the proletariat, whence arise the social weather condition that would abolish commercialism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of art is not an exclusively mod human activity, citing examples such as artists manually copying the piece of work of a primary artist. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the ways for the mechanical reproduction of art, and their furnishings upon society's valuation of a piece of work of art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the postage mill in Ancient Hellenic republic; and the mod arts of woodcut relief-press, engraving, etching, lithography, and photography, all of which are techniques of mass production that permit greater accuracy in reproducing a work of art.^[6]

Actuality [edit]

The aura of a work of art derives from authenticity (uniqueness) and locale (physical and cultural); Benjamin explains that "fifty-fifty the nearly perfect reproduction of a piece of work of art is lacking in ane chemical element: Its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it 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; however, by changing the cultural context of where the artwork is located, the beingness of the mechanical copy diminishes the aesthetic value of the original work of art. In that way, the aura—the unique artful authority of a work of art—is absent from the mechanically produced re-create.^[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 out; with one, the accent is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work. Artistic production begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve in a cult. One may assume 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 attainable only to the priest in the cella; certain madonnas remain covered nearly all year round; sure sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on basis level."^[x] In practice, the macerated cult value of a religious artefact (an icon no longer venerated) increases the artefact'south exhibition value as fine art created for the spectators' appreciation, because "it is easier to exhibit a portrait bust, that can exist sent here and at that place [to museums], than to exhibit the statue of a divinity that has its fixed identify in the interior of a temple."^[11]

The mechanical reproduction of a work of art voids its cult value, because removal from a fixed, individual 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 paradigm, exhibition value, for the first time, shows its superiority to cult value."^[xiii] In emphasising exhibition value, "the piece of work of art becomes a creation with entirely new functions," which "later may be recognized every bit incidental" to the original purpose for which the artist created the Objet d'art.^[fourteen]

As a medium of creative production, the cinema (moving pictures) does non create cult value for the motion picture, itself, because "the audience'south identification with the actor is actually an identification with the camera. Consequently, the audience takes the position of the camera; its approach is that of testing. This is not the approach to which cult values may be exposed." Therefore, "the motion picture makes the cult value recede into the background, not merely past putting the public in the position of the critic, simply also by the fact that, at the movies, this [critical] position requires no attending."^[15]

Art every bit politics [edit]

The social value of a work of art changes equally a society modify their value systems; thus the changes in creative styles and in the cultural tastes of the public follow "the manner in which homo sense-perception is organized [and] the [creative] medium in which it is accomplished, [which are] determined non only past Nature, but by historical circumstances, besides."^[7] Despite the socio-cultural effects of mass-produced, reproduction-art upon the aura of the original piece of work of 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.^[seven] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of fine art also emancipated "the piece of 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 possessor's enjoyment of the aesthetics of the artefacts (usually Loftier Art), to the public sphere of life, wherein the public bask 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 Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explain the contemporary representations of social class and racial caste inherent to the politics and product of art. That in transforming a work of art into a commodity, the modern means of artistic production and of artistic reproduction accept destroyed the aesthetic, cultural, and political authority of art: "For the first time ever, images of art have go ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free," considering they are commercial products that lack the aura of actuality of the original objet d'fine art.^[xvi]

See too [edit]

• Aestheticization of politics
• Art for art's 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 Age of Mechanical Reproduction'" in Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are In that location Any? Should There Be? How About These?, Katz et al. (Eds.) Polity Press, Cambridge. ISBN 9780745629346. pp. 74–89.
3. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects, Routledge, London, 2011.
4. ^ Notes on Walter Benjamin, "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", a commentary by Gareth Griffiths, Aalto University, 2011. ^{[ permanent dead link ]}
5. ^ Paul Valéry, La Conquête de l'ubiquité (1928)
6. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Historic period 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's Aureola," Critical Inquiry No. 34 (Winter 2008)
9. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. iv.
10. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
11. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
12. ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Section 2". Samizdat Online. 2016-07-20. Retrieved 2020-05-22 .
13. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age 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 Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. five–vi.
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, "L'œuvre d'art à 50'époque de sa reproduction méchanisée," in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung Jahrgang V, Félix Alcan, Paris, 1936, pp. 40–68 (23MB)
• Complete text in High german (in High german)
• Fractional text of the essay, with commentary by Detlev Schöttker (in German)
• A comment to the essay on "diségno"

garrettwenton.blogspot.com

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

Share this post