ââæ’ the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Walter Benjamin

1935 essay by Walter Benjamin

In "The 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 order.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), past Walter Benjamin, is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aureola (uniqueness) of an objet d'art.^[1] That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absenteeism of traditional and ritualistic value, the product of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Deutschland, 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 society.^[2]

The subject and themes of Benjamin's essay: the aura of a work of fine art; the creative authenticity of the artefact; its cultural authority; and the aestheticization of politics for the product 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 Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility", was published in three editions: (i) the German edition, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in 1935; (ii) the French edition, 50'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 Fine art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction".^[4]

Summary [edit]

In "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period 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 found how works of art created and developed in past eras are unlike from gimmicky works of art; that the understanding and handling of art and of artistic technique must progressively develop in society to sympathise a work of art in the context of the modernistic time.

Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose power of activeness upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. Only the amazing growth of our techniques, the adaptability 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 at that place is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated equally it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and ability. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor fourth dimension has been what it was from time immemorial. We must await great innovations to transform the unabridged technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an astonishing change in our very notion of art.^[5]

Artistic production [edit]

In the Preface, Benjamin presents Marxist analyses of the system of a capitalist society and establishes the place of the arts in the public sphere and in the private sphere. He then explains the socio-economic conditions to extrapolate developments that further the economical exploitation of the proletariat, whence ascend the social conditions that would abolish capitalism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of fine art is not an exclusively mod human activeness, citing examples such as artists manually copying the work of a main artist. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the means for the mechanical reproduction of art, and their effects upon order's valuation of a work of fine art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the postage manufactory in Ancient Hellenic republic; and the mod arts of woodcut relief-press, engraving, carving, lithography, and photography, all of which are techniques of mass production that permit greater accuracy in reproducing a work of art.^[6]

Authenticity [edit]

The aureola of a work of art derives from actuality (uniqueness) and locale (physical and cultural); Benjamin explains that "even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is defective in one element: Its presence in fourth dimension and infinite, its unique beingness at the identify 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 authentic reproduction; yet, past changing the cultural context of where the artwork is located, the existence of the mechanical re-create diminishes the aesthetic value of the original work of art. In that mode, the aura—the unique artful say-so of a work of art—is absent-minded from the mechanically produced copy.^[eight]

Value: cult and exhibition [edit]

Regarding the social functions of an artefact, Benjamin said that "Works of fine art are received and valued on different planes. Two polar types stand out; with one, the emphasis is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work. Artistic production begins with formalism objects destined to serve in a cult. 1 may assume that what mattered was their existence, not their being on view."^[9] The cult value of religious art is that "certain statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella; sure madonnas remain covered virtually all twelvemonth round; certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on basis level."^[10] In do, 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 "information technology is easier to showroom a portrait bust, that can be sent here and at that place [to museums], than to exhibit the statue of a divinity that has its fixed place in the interior of a temple."^[eleven]

The mechanical reproduction of a work of art voids its cult value, considering removal from a stock-still, individual infinite (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 starting time fourth dimension, shows its superiority to cult value."^[13] In emphasising exhibition value, "the work of art becomes a creation with entirely new functions," which "later may be recognized as incidental" to the original purpose for which the creative person created the Objet d'fine art.^[14]

As a medium of artistic production, the cinema (moving pictures) does not create cult value for the motion moving-picture show, itself, because "the audience's identification with the histrion 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 not the approach 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, merely as well by the fact that, at the movies, this [disquisitional] position requires no attention."^[15]

Fine art as politics [edit]

The social value of a work of fine art changes as a society change 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 only past Nature, but by historical circumstances, as well."^[7] Despite the socio-cultural furnishings of mass-produced, reproduction-art upon the aura of the original piece of work of art, Benjamin said that "the uniqueness of a piece of work of fine art is inseparable from its existence embedded in the fabric of tradition," which separates the original piece of work of art from the reproduction.^[seven] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of art also emancipated "the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual,"^[7] thereby increasing the social value of exhibiting works of art, which practise progressed from the private sphere of life, the owner's enjoyment of the aesthetics of the artefacts (commonly Loftier Art), to the public sphere of life, wherein the public savour the aforementioned aesthetics in an art gallery.

Influence [edit]

In the late-twentieth-century television programme Means of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and developed the themes of "The Piece of 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 article, the modern ways of artistic product and of artistic reproduction have destroyed the artful, cultural, and political authority of art: "For the first time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free," considering 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 fine art's sake

References [edit]

1. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects (2011) Routledge, London, p. 0000.
2. ^ Scannell, Paddy. (2003) "Benjamin Contextualized: On 'The Piece of work of Fine art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction'" in Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are There Any? Should In that location 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 expressionless link ]}
5. ^ Paul Valéry, La Conquête de 50'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 Age 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 Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
12. ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Section Two". Samizdat Online. 2016-07-20. Retrieved 2020-05-22 .
13. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The 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 Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 5–six.
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 Five, Félix Alcan, Paris, 1936, pp. 40–68 (23MB)
• Consummate text in German (in German)
• Partial text of the essay, with commentary by Detlev Schöttker (in German)
• A annotate to the essay on "diségno"

harveyfarriny.blogspot.com

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

Share this post