Alter Benjamin Work of Art in the Age of Its Reproducibility

1935 essay by Walter Benjamin

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

"The Work of 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'fine art.^[one] That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absenteeism of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of fine art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Frg, Benjamin'southward 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 area and themes of Benjamin's essay: the aura of a work of art; the creative 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.^[3]

The original essay, "The Work of Art in the Historic period of its Technological Reproducibility", was published in three editions: (i) the German edition, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in 1935; (two) the French edition, L'œuvre d'fine art à l'époque de sa reproduction mécanisée, in 1936; and (iii) 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 footing 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 different from contemporary works of art; that the agreement and handling of 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 power of action upon things was insignificant in comparing with ours. Merely the amazing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they accept attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer exist considered or treated every bit information technology used to exist, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the concluding xx years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must expect corking innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing nearly an amazing modify in our very notion of art.^[five]

Creative product [edit]

In the Preface, Benjamin presents Marxist analyses of the organisation of a capitalist order 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 farther the economic exploitation of the proletariat, whence arise the social conditions that would abolish capitalism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of fine art is not an exclusively modern homo activity, citing examples such as artists manually copying the piece of work of a main artist. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the ways for the mechanical reproduction of art, and their effects upon society'southward valuation of a work of art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the stamp mill in Aboriginal Greece; 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.^[half-dozen]

Authenticity [edit]

The aura of a piece of work of art derives from authenticity (uniqueness) and locale (physical and cultural); Benjamin explains that "even the virtually perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: Its presence in fourth dimension and infinite, its unique being 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.^[seven] Therefore, the original piece of work of art is an objet d'fine art independent of the mechanically accurate reproduction; withal, by 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 manner, the aureola—the unique aesthetic say-so of a work of art—is absent-minded from the mechanically produced copy.^[viii]

Value: cult and exhibition [edit]

Regarding the social functions of an artefact, Benjamin said that "Works of art are received and valued on unlike 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. Creative production begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve in a cult. One may presume that what mattered was their existence, not their beingness on view."^[ix] The cult value of religious art is that "certain statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella; certain madonnas remain covered nearly all twelvemonth round; sure sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on ground level."^[10] In practise, the diminished cult value of a religious artefact (an icon no longer venerated) increases the artefact's exhibition value every bit art created for the spectators' appreciation, because "it is easier to exhibit a portrait bust, that can be sent here and there [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, 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 fine art becomes a creation with entirely new functions," which "later may exist recognized equally incidental" to the original purpose for which the artist created the Objet d'fine art.^[14]

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

Art equally politics [edit]

The social value of a piece of work of art changes equally a lodge change their value systems; thus the changes in creative styles and in the cultural tastes of the public follow "the fashion in which human being sense-perception is organized [and] the [artistic] medium in which it is accomplished, [which are] adamant non only by Nature, but by historical circumstances, as well."^[7] Despite the socio-cultural effects of mass-produced, reproduction-art upon the aureola of the original piece of work of art, Benjamin said that "the uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its beingness embedded in the fabric of tradition," which separates the original work of art from the reproduction.^[7] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of 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 High Art), to the public sphere of life, wherein the public enjoy the aforementioned aesthetics in an art gallery.

Influence [edit]

In the late-twentieth-century goggle box program Ways of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and developed the themes of "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explain the contemporary representations of social form and racial caste inherent to the politics and production of art. That in transforming a work of art into a article, the modern means of artistic product and of artistic reproduction have destroyed the aesthetic, cultural, and political authorisation of art: "For the first time always, images of fine art have go ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free," because they are commercial products that lack the aura of actuality of the original objet d'art.^[sixteen]

Run across besides [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 Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'" in Canonic Texts in Media Inquiry: Are There Any? Should At that place Be? How Nigh 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 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 Piece of work of 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–eighteen. ISBN9781407085500.
8. ^ Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2008). "Benjamin's Aureola," Critical Enquiry No. 34 (Wintertime 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 Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
11. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. iv.
12. ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Section Two". Samizdat Online. 2016-07-twenty. Retrieved 2020-05-22 .
13. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
14. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. four.
15. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. five–6.
16. ^ Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin Books, London, 1972, pp. 32–34.

External links [edit]

• Consummate text of the essay, translated
• Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (1932-1941) - Download the original text in French, "50'œuvre d'art à l'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)
• Fractional text of the essay, with commentary by Detlev Schöttker (in German)
• A comment to the essay on "diségno"

verdihastoom.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction#:~:text=%22The%20Work%20of%20Art%20in,of%20an%20objet%20d'art.

Share this post