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

1935 essay by Walter Benjamin

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

"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 age of mechanical reproduction and the absence 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 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 society.^[2]

The field of study and themes of Benjamin's essay: the aura of a work of fine art; the artistic actuality of the artefact; its cultural authority; and the aestheticization of politics for the production of art, became resource 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 Historic period of its Technological Reproducibility", was published in 3 editions: (i) the German edition, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in 1935; (ii) the French edition, Fifty'œuvre d'art à 50'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 ground for a theory of fine art past quoting the essay "The Conquest of Ubiquity" (1928), by Paul Valéry, to establish how works of art created and adult 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 gild to understand a work of art in the context of the modern fourth dimension.

Our fine arts were adult, their types and uses were established, in times very unlike from the present, by men whose power of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. Merely the amazing growth of our techniques, the adjustability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that profound changes are impending in the aboriginal craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer exist considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the terminal twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from fourth dimension immemorial. We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting creative invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.^[5]

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 private sphere. He and so explains the socio-economic weather condition to extrapolate developments that further the economic exploitation of the proletariat, whence ascend the social conditions that would abolish capitalism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of art is not an exclusively modern man activity, citing examples such every bit artists manually copying the work of a master artist. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the means for the mechanical reproduction of art, and their furnishings upon social club's valuation of a piece of work of art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the postage stamp factory in Ancient Hellenic republic; and the modern 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]

Authenticity [edit]

The aura of a piece of work of fine art derives from authenticity (uniqueness) and locale (physical and cultural); Benjamin explains that "even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: Its presence in time and space, its unique existence 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'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 copy diminishes the aesthetic value of the original piece of work of fine art. In that way, the aureola—the unique aesthetic dominance of a piece of work of art—is absent from the mechanically produced copy.^[viii]

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. 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 beingness, not their beingness 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 well-nigh all year circular; certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on footing level."^[x] In practice, the macerated cult value of a religious artefact (an icon no longer venerated) increases the artefact'due south exhibition value as 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 showroom the statue of a divinity that has its fixed place 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 fine 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 kickoff time, 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 artist created the Objet d'fine art.^[14]

Equally a medium of artistic production, the cinema (moving pictures) does non create cult value for the moving picture, itself, because "the audience's identification with the histrion 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 arroyo to which cult values may be exposed." Therefore, "the motion picture makes the cult value recede into the groundwork, not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but as well by the fact that, at the movies, this [disquisitional] position requires no attention."^[15]

Art as politics [edit]

The social value of a work of fine 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 only by Nature, but by historical circumstances, every bit 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 work of fine art is inseparable from its being 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 owner'southward enjoyment of the aesthetics of the artefacts (usually Loftier Fine art), to the public sphere of life, wherein the public enjoy the same aesthetics in an fine art gallery.

Influence [edit]

In the tardily-twentieth-century tv set program Ways of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and adult the themes of "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explain the contemporary representations of social course and racial degree inherent to the politics and product of art. That in transforming a piece of work of art into a commodity, the mod means of creative production and of creative reproduction have destroyed the artful, cultural, and political authority of art: "For the beginning time ever, images of art have become imperceptible, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free," because they are commercial products that lack the aureola of authenticity of the original objet d'art.^[16]

See likewise [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 Enquiry: Are At that place Whatever? Should There Be? How Well-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 fifty'ubiquité (1928)
6. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The 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–xviii. ISBN9781407085500.
8. ^ Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2008). "Benjamin'south Aura," Critical Inquiry 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 Fine 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 Ii". 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 Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 5–6.
16. ^ Berger, John. Ways 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 l'époque de sa reproduction méchanisée," in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung Jahrgang V, Félix Alcan, Paris, 1936, pp. xl–68 (23MB)
• Consummate text in German (in German)
• Partial text of the essay, with commentary past Detlev Schöttker (in German language)
• A comment to the essay on "diségno"

boldmazing.blogspot.com

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

Share this post