Benjamin ââåthe Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproductionã¢ââ

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 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'art.^[i] That in the age 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 Frg, 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.^[ii]

The subject and themes of Benjamin's essay: the aura of a work of art; the artistic authenticity of the artefact; its cultural say-so; and the aestheticization of politics for the production of fine 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 Fine art in the Historic period of its Technological Reproducibility," was published in three editions: (i) the German language 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 (iii) the German revised edition in 1939, from which derive the contemporary English translations of the essay titled "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction."^[iv]

Summary [edit]

In "The 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 establish how works of art created and developed in past eras are different from contemporary works of art; that the agreement 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 modernistic time.

Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the nowadays, by men whose power of activeness upon things was insignificant in comparing with ours. Simply the astonishing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they accept attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, brand 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 tin no longer exist considered or treated every bit information technology used to exist, which cannot remain unaffected by our mod cognition and ability. For the final xx years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must wait slap-up innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing well-nigh an astonishing modify in our very notion of fine art.^[5]

Artistic 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 then explains the socio-economic atmospheric condition to extrapolate developments that further the economic exploitation of the proletariat, whence arise the social weather that would cancel capitalism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of art is non an exclusively mod human activity, citing examples such every bit artists manually copying the work of a master creative person. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the ways for the mechanical reproduction of art, and their effects upon social club's valuation of a work of art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the stamp manufactory in Ancient Greece; and the mod 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 work of art.^[6]

Authenticity [edit]

The aura of a work of art derives from authenticity (uniqueness) and locale (physical and cultural); Benjamin explains that "even the about 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'art independent of the mechanically accurate reproduction; yet, past irresolute 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 way, the aura — the unique aesthetic 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. Two polar types stand up out; with ane, 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 being on view."^[9] The cult value of religious fine art is that "certain statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella; certain madonnas remain covered almost all yr circular; certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on ground level."^[10] In practice, 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 showroom a portrait bust, that can be sent here and there [to museums], than to exhibit 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, 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] Farther explaining the transition from cult value to exhibition value, Benjamin said that in "the photographic image, exhibition value, for the start time, shows its superiority to cult value."^[13] In emphasising exhibition value, "the work of fine art becomes a cosmos with entirely new functions," which "later may exist recognized as incidental" to the original purpose for which the artist created the Objet d'art.^[xiv]

Equally a medium of artistic production, the cinema (moving pictures) does not create cult value for the motion picture, itself, considering "the audition's identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera. Consequently, the audience takes the position of the photographic camera; its arroyo is that of testing. This is not the approach to which cult values may be exposed." Therefore, "the picture show makes the cult value recede into the groundwork, non only by putting the public in the position of the critic, simply also by the fact that, at the movies, this [disquisitional] position requires no attending."^[15]

Art as politics [edit]

The social value of a work of 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 fashion in which human sense-perception is organized [and] the [artistic] medium in which it is accomplished, [which are] determined not only by Nature, only by historical circumstances, also."^[vii] Despite the socio-cultural effects of mass-produced, reproduction-art upon the aura of the original 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.^[vii] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of art too 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 (unremarkably Loftier Art), to the public sphere of life, wherein the public relish the same aesthetics in an art gallery.

Influence [edit]

In the tardily-twentieth-century television program Means of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and developed the themes of "The Work of Fine art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explain the contemporary representations of social class and racial caste inherent to the politics and production of art. That in transforming a piece of work of fine art into a article, the modern ways of artistic production and of artistic reproduction have destroyed the aesthetic, cultural, and political authority of art: "For the starting time time ever, images of art have become imperceptible, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free," considering they are commercial products that lack the aura of authenticity of the original objet d'art.^[16]

Run across too [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 Age of Mechanical Reproduction,'" in Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are There Whatever? Should In that location Be? How Most 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 Age of Mechanical Reproduction", a commentary past 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 Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction," Illuminations . London: Fontana. pp. 214–18. ISBN9781407085500.
8. ^ Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2008). "Benjamin'south Aureola," Critical Research No. 34 (Winter 2008)
9. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. four.
10. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. iv.
11. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. four.
12. ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Section II". 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 Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 5–half dozen.
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, "50'œuvre d'fine art à l'époque de sa reproduction méchanisée," in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung Jahrgang Five, Félix Alcan, Paris, 1936, pp. xl–68 (23MB)
• Complete text in High german (in German)
• Partial text of the essay, with commentary past Detlev Schöttker (in German language)
• A comment to the essay on "diségno"

owenscappiket.blogspot.com

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