The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Werke und Nachlaß. Kritische Gesamtausgabe #16

by Walter Benjamin, J.A. Underwood (Translator)

An attempt to analyze the changed experience of art in modern capitalist society.

Genres: Philosophy, Art, Nonfiction, Theory, Essays, Photography, Art History

101 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1936

About the author

Walter Bendix Schönflies Benjamin was a German Jewish philosopher, cultural critic, media theorist, and essayist. An eclectic thinker who combined elements of German idealism, Romanticism, Western Marxism, Jewish mysticism, and neo-Kantianism, Benjamin made influential contributions to aesthetic theory, literary criticism, and historical materialism. He was associated with the Frankfurt School and also maintained formative friendships with thinkers such as playwright Bertolt Brecht and Kabbalah scholar Gershom Scholem. He was related to German political theorist and philosopher Hannah Arendt through her first marriage to Benjamin's cousin Günther Anders, though the friendship between Arendt and Benjamin outlasted her marriage to Anders. Both Arendt and Anders were students of Martin Heidegger, whom Benjamin considered a nemesis.
Among Benjamin's best known works are the essays "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) and "Theses on the Philosophy of History" (1940). His major work as a literary critic included essays on Charles Baudelaire, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Franz Kafka, Karl Kraus, Nikolai Leskov, Marcel Proust, Robert Walser, Trauerspiel and translation theory. He also made major translations into German of the Tableaux Parisiens section of Baudelaire's Les Fleurs du mal and parts of Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu.
Of the hidden principle organizing Walter Benjamin's thought Scholem wrote unequivocally that "Benjamin was a philosopher", while his younger colleagues Arendt and Theodor W. Adorno contend that he was "not a philosopher". Scholem remarked "The peculiar aura of authority emanating from his work tended to incite contradiction". Benjamin himself considered his research to be theological, though he eschewed all recourse to traditionally metaphysical sources of transcendentally revealed authority.
In 1940, at the age of 48, Benjamin died by suicide at Portbou on the French Spanish border while attempting to escape the advance of the Third Reich. Though popular acclaim eluded him during his life, the decades following his death won his work posthumous renown.

Reviews

[Glenn Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most influential essays on art and aesthetics in the twentieth century, Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, written in 1935, points out how works of art are diminished by mechanical reproduction. To share a modest taste of the great German philosopher's thinking outlined in this influential essay, here are a number of quotes along with my comments:

“In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new.”

Benjamin is speaking of film and magazines. Of course, the reproduction of works of art nowadays on the internet makes all art available to all people at all time. This can cut both ways - on the downside, the copy isn't even close to the original (we judge a ten foot canvas by a ten inch photo) but I greatly appreciate how I can view art from around the world instantly. Not to mention that I listen to hours of string quartet music and world music every single day in the comfort of my own home. If films are added to the mix, I strongly suspect nearly everybody reading this likewise benefits from the arts being reproduced mechanically and electronically.



“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 place where it happens to be.”

We have to go to Kyoto to experience the real Zen garden; not nearly the same thing as looking at a photograph.



“Process reproduction is more independent of the original than manual reproduction. For example, in photography, process reproduction can bring out those aspects of the original that are unattainable to the naked eye yet accessible to the lens, which is adjustable and chooses its angle at will.”

The camera highlighting unique features of the human face can make the photograph both remarkable and unforgettable, especially true if the face is the face of a celebrity.



“And photographic reproduction, with the aid of certain processes, such as enlargement or slow motion, can capture images which escape natural vision.”

As per this photo capturing a moment of dynamic movement in a dance.



“Technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself. Above all, it enables the original to meet the beholder halfway, be it in the form of a photograph or a phonograph record.”

Andy Warhol grasped the power of rendering an artistic image by his own artistic enhancement.



“The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated.”

I viewed this stunning Winslow Homer at an exhibition in New York. The extraordinary power of the painting almost put me on my knees. The photo captures only a very small fraction of the artist's work, thus the truth of Benjamin's words: the art is depreciated.



“This holds not only for the art work but also, for instance, for a landscape which passes in review before the spectator in a movie.”

What's true for art is also true for nature. For example, the desert in this film is stripped of its overwhelming presence for the moviegoer.



“One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.”

According to Benjamin, each work of art contains its own "aura," an element completely lacking in reproduction.



“One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.”

Oceanic tribal art displayed in a museum. Quite a difference from the tribespeople who used this art as part of their religious and communal rituals.



“To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose “sense of the universal equality of things” has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction.”

Statues of saints on entry in medieval cathedral in Koeln, Germany via a photo that eliminates the cathedral!



“The film actor lacks the opportunity of the stage actor to adjust to the audience during his performance, since he does not present his performance to the audience in person.”

Every live performance is unique and different every single night, in part, based on the audience's participation and response, an element completely lacking in film.



“All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war.”

In a Nazi rally, aspects of aesthetics were incorporated so as to bring such a great mass of people under the will of the Führer. Even visitors from other countries reported how moved they were by such a spectacle. The Nazis and their war machine were the prime example for Walter Benjamin. The great thinker, one of the most sensitive souls in all of Europe, committed suicide to avoid abduction by the Nazis.

[Eddie Watkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m a mild-mannered guy, passionately mild-mannered I should say, as I’m not very demonstrative, rarely boiling, but always at a simmer. And I’m not boiling now, but I am annoyed, vaguely so, and I’m looking for some help to specify my annoyance, or refute it.

This past Saturday night I was at a party and this relatively new store, or boutique, in Philadelphia kept coming up as a topic of conversation. The name of this boutique is Art in the Age, which in its fullness reveals itself as Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Without even getting into what they sell, I have a problem right here, in this place’s very name. I have a problem with books whose titles specifically reference other, more famous, and more than likely better, books; but to find out that a store specifically references a famous essay, an essay that has considerable intellectual hipster (not to say pretentious) cachet, nearly shattered my mild-mannered façade. And this before I even knew what they sell, or the prices they charge!

Though I’m not a shopper, I do appreciate nice stores and stores with well-designed signs and windows, and even attractive interiors (though to enter a store with no intention of shelling out makes me self-conscious); but when I contemplate the actual mercantile nitty-gritty of such stores I get upset. I’m someone who thinks that almost everything is over-priced, and the nature of our economy and its utter reliance on ever-growing personal debt pisses me off. So I like the superficial aspects of nice stores, but loathe their “substance”, and while at the same time acknowledging that to have these superficial aspects there must be inveterate shoppers with more than likely ever-growing debt, I sneer nearly imperceptibly at these shoppers as I’m appreciating the window dressing.

I have never entered the Art in the Age store, but I have visited their website, and, like a store window I can enjoy, their website is well-designed, with just enough intellectualism and restrained hipster artiness dotted between their quiet ploys to extract cash (or credit) from our pockets. And while there are profiles of actual artists and/or artisans, and musicians, on their site, giving one the impression that the store might actually be an art gallery or a soundspace, when I looked further into what they sell what do I find? - $34 t-shirts, $120 scarves, $60 hoodies, $80 ties, $230 backpacks, etc.

Now I understand that these prices are on the low-end of boutique prices, but they’re still over-priced; and this gets me to Benjamin… I realized I had actually never read this essay, as the title itself seemed self-explanatory and sufficient unto itself, so in order not to be just another Benjaminian poseur who spouts out titles without having read the body, someone who is nothing but window dressing with nothing for sale inside, I woke up Sunday and read the essay.

And what, in relation to this store, stood out for me in the essay? His discussion of how taste, i.e. connoisseurship, developed when people became more distanced from the actual means of production. As a kind of compensatory action, to cover up guilt? ignorance? etc? because of their inability to make the things, individuals developed ever more refined tastes in common items. It’s clear how this led to seemingly bustling economies, as scarves went from something you or your grandmother would knit to something simply plucked off a rack at $120 a pop. The foundation of economies are over-priced items. So how does the proprietor of this store reconcile this with his store’s Benjamin references? Sure, these scarves are handmade by artisans, a good thing, but they are purchased by non-artisan connoisseur shoppers who are more than likely going deeper into debt. Strip away the Benjamin references and I can swallow it, however reluctantly, but with them it’s all a marketing house of cards.

Elsewhere in the essay Benjamin comes off as maybe a bit reactionary, especially in his discussion of film, though I loved his idea that in order to compensate for films lack of “aura” the movers and shakers behind the industry created living breathing “stars” who had aura to burn (however sham) to fill in an aesthetic gap and assure the perpetual growth of film as an industry. I don’t accept that films have no aura simply because they are mechanical reproductions. Or is our age so degraded that I can sense an aura in film that isn’t there?

There are plenty of plums to be picked here, juicy little tidbits to artfully display in one’s intellectual window, but also plenty of meat to fully stock the shelves within. And the best thing about it is that it’s inexpensive, ever-renewable, and intellectually nourishing, something real and something useful.

[Olga · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this essay Benjamin continues discussing the ideas first presented in 'A Short Story of Photography'. He focuses on the new forms of art at that time - photography and film. In his opinion, if a work of art is copied and reproduced, it loses its uniqness. The author also emphasizes the significance of the art for the masses for a political regime, namely, the fascist regime.

'With the different methods of technical reproduction of a work of art, its fitness for exhibition increased to such an extent that the quantitative shift between its two poles turned into a qualitative transformation of its nature. This is comparable to the situation of the work of art in prehistoric times when, by the absolute emphasis on its cult value, it was, first and foremost, an instrument of magic. Only later did it come to be recognized as a work of art. In the same
way today, by the absolute emphasis on its exhibition value the work of art becomes a creation with entirely new functions, among which the one we are conscious of, the artistic function, later may be recognized as incidental.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'The film is the art form that is in keeping with the increased threat to his life which modern man has to face. Man’s need to expose himself to shock effects is his adjustment to the dangers threatening him. The film corresponds to profound changes in the apperceptive apparatus--changes that are experienced on an individual scale by the man in the street in big-city traffic, on a historical scale by every present-day citizen.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'(...)Distraction and concentration form polar opposites which may be stated as follows: A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it. He enters into this work of an the way legend tells of the Chinese painter when he viewed his finished painting. In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art. This is most obvious with regard to buildings. Architecture has always represented the prototype of a work of art the reception of which is consummated by a collectivity in a state of distraction. The laws of its reception are most instructive.(...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. This is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today’s technical resources while maintaining the property system.(...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Fiat ars—pereat mundus,” says Fascism, and, as Marinetti admits, expects war to supply the artistic gratification of a sense perception that has been changed by technology. This is evidently the consummation of “l’art pour l’art.” Mankind, which in Homer’s time was an object of contemplation for the Olympian gods, now is one for itself. Its self-alienation has reached such a
degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order. This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic.(...)'

[Mir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Klee, Angelus Novus

"This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress."


Drink pairing:

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Resist the urge to dismiss this essay because of the epilogue. In fact, you can skip that section. I admit, it's one of those where you're like, "Wait a tick, how'd we get here exactly?"

Here's a few ideas that I rather liked: (note, this is a fairly dense 26 page PDF, so my notes will be necessarily oversimplified and oriented towards my own interests)

According to Walter Benjamin, the work of art has an “aura” which is largely dependent on the historico-technological context. The earliest art, taking the form of cave-paintings and idols seemed to be interactions with the sacred first (B calls this cult value) and exhibitions for limited audiences second. Over time, evolving with the economic mode, we witness a shift toward exhibition value in the aesthetic experience, but there remains access to the aura in terms of a unique observer-work interface, entailing what B calls a reactionary response, which is entirely individual, conditioned by context, perspective and identity. However, in the age of mechanical reproduction, technology (e.g. photography, film) degrades the aura of the work of art by necessity in making possible a mass consumption of the art object, whose fractured (individualized) or unified (group) simultaneity engenders a progressive reaction, “characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the expert.” This “orientation of the expert” need not be thought of as access to the learned interpretations of professionals in the field, but rather reproducibility itself extending the potentiality of our comprehension. Take for example the close-up camera shot: “With the close-up, space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended. The enlargement of a snapshot does not simply render more precise what in any case was visible, though unclear: it reveals entirely new structural formations of the subject. […] Evidently a different nature opens itself to the camera than opens to the naked eye–if only because an unconsciously penetrated space is substituted for a space consciously explored by man.” The pejorative here is NOT that new art forms which emerge with technology, such as photography and film are bad because they tend to be correlated with passive mindless distraction rather than immersive concentration, instead the very mode of appropriation entails a severing from the aura of the work of art due to the current viewer’s lack of access to previous modes of being (and all the unique and constitutive limitations of experience), making it that much more difficult to avoid “progressive,” mediated interfaces with all art forms. Presumably, such access to the aura of the work of art is now only approximated through the insight of this conceptual sublimation.

Here's a link to the PDF [saved you a few keystrokes and clicks]:

http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjam...

Also, watch Berger's "Ways of Seeing" on YouTube [It is free and only about 30 min...only episode one is necessary, but the rest is pretty good too]. That should prime your pump if you're not generally a philo person, as his art documentary is largely a précis of Benjamin's essay.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 2 out of 5]

This slim which takes less than two hours to read was enjoyable but left me feeling that I had not been properly introduced to the legendary Marxist literary critic who died tragically in 1940 fleeing from Nazi German. In all it contains a mere three essays.

The most substantial is "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production". Benjamin arguesd that art produced mechanically could not adequately fill the traditional magic and subsequently religious role of art by virtue of the fact that the none of the individual copies possessed the supernatural aura of uniqueness. Film a revolutionary new art form also had the drawback of alienating the actor from the live audience. However, because film alienated it was ideally suited to Fascist propaganda or Marxist education.

The second essay, "Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of his Death", is a work that represents Benjamin's spiritual Jewish side. The work is pleasant to read but says nothing that anything that anyone would disagree with. Benjamin makes the points that Kafka's work was dominated by the theme of dread in the face of God's judgement and that Kafka felt oppressed by his father neither of which come as surprises.

The last essay, "Picturing Proust" is particularly dreadful even if Benjamin's enthusiasm for the great French novelist is quite infectious. Benjamin starts by saying that "Remembrance of things past" is about the process of the remembrance rather than the things past which is not true. It is indeed about the people and things that Proust loved in his life not just the surprising qualities of the human memory. Benjamin then goes off the deep-end attempting to show that Proust offers a Marxist critique of the bourgeoisie. His argument is that Proust's lampooning of snobbishness is Marxist in the
Snobbishness in its essence is valuing art by its markets price rather than its spiritual quality. This is ludicrous reasoning which is typical of the overall weakness in the piece.

[Lucinda Garza Zamarripa]

El Walter Benjamin tendría MUCHAS cosas por decir sobre el TikTok.

(No rating porque solamente leí el ensayo principal en el libro y porque lo leí para la maestría. Still pretty interesting and worth the read).

[Vik · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important reading on film theory to understand the nature of transformation in modern art due to the introduction of capitalism

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not that I expect anyone to actually read a college essay I wrote five years ago, but I present here my full thoughts upon Walter Benjamin's wonderful essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility". I wrote it for one of my favorite classes (Aesthetics) and I have fond memories of trying to divine the real effects of copy machines and cameras on an art world that existed for centuries without such reproducibility.


Ambivalence In the Age of Art’s Technological Reproducibility

It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced. (Benjamin 22)

This quote from Walter Benjamin’s revolutionary essay “The Work of Art In the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility” exposes the root of a profound ambivalence about the modern world. One can easily imagine the two opposing forces within Benjamin as he wrote, glee for the incomparable accessibility of art in the modern age, yet sorrow over the death of art’s authenticity, what he refers to as the “aura” of the original artwork. For that is the price of modern technological reproduction: the “withering” (Benjamin 22) of the sacred aura of art.

This essay will explore several concepts which Benjamin formulates in his essay, including the aura and authenticity of art, and their place within the modern age of reproducibility. But the main goal of this essay is to explore the feelings of ambivalence which Benjamin must have experienced when considering the effect of technological reproducibility upon works of art, the art world, and beyond. Nearing the end of this essay, I will give my own philosophical critique of Benjamin’s argument, concluding that while the aura of the artwork is a regrettable loss, it is a small price to pay for the reproducibility of art. I will focus more upon what is not lost – the aesthetic qualities of the artwork.

It is important to clarify what this essay will not discuss. Benjamin, while making huge universal claims about the nature of art and its role in modern society, focused much of his attention not on the art world, but on the political world, for he wrote during the terribly unsettling time of the rise of fascism, Communism, and Nazism. Much of the length of his argument is devoted to the logical consequences of the abilities of the technological reproduction of artwork, in which Benjamin concludes that the state of technology has reached the point of near catastrophe. The combination of technology and aesthetics has led to “the point where [humankind] can experience its own annihilation as a supreme aesthetic pleasure. Such is the aestheticizing of politics, as practiced by fascism” (Benjamin 42). My essay makes no attempt at such bold claims about the fate of humanity, and avoids the temptation to show how the technological reproducibility of art may lead to apocalypse. My aspirations are much less ambitious than Benjamin’s. I intend only to deal with the immediate ramifications of the mass reproduction of art, and how it may affect the authenticity of art, the auratic glow which Benjamin holds so dearly.


I.

Benjamin’s essay was sparked by the revelation of the feat of modern technology – the ability it has to reproduce any kind of art. This is an accomplishment that had never been reached before, as Benjamin states, around 1900 (21). There is a distinction between technological reproduction and reproduction by hand. There have always been forgers of paintings, who copy an artwork brush stroke by brush stroke (by hand), but not before the inventions of photography and film has a work been susceptible to such advanced technological reproduction. This is the revolutionary development – the new standard - which spawns Benjamin’s first big question: “In gauging this standard, we would do well to study the impact which its two different manifestations – the reproduction of artworks and the art of film – are having on art in its traditional form” (21).

Benjamin is remarkably explicit about the impact which he believes technological reproduction has had on the traditional form of art: “What withers in the age of the technological reproducibility of the work of art is the latter’s aura” (22). But of course, I have not yet defined exactly what Benjamin means by his curious term “aura”. I can do no better than to quote his own picturesque account of it.
What, then, is the aura? A strange tissue of space and time: the unique apparition of the distance, however near it may be. To follow with the eye – while resting on a summer afternoon – a mountain range on the horizon or a branch that casts its shadow on the beholder is to breathe the aura of those mountains, of that branch. (23)

Benjamin’s aura is closely tied to two properties of the work of art: its uniqueness and its history. In fact, he writes that, “the uniqueness of the work of art is identical to its embeddedness in the context of tradition” (24). So, to be explicit, for a work of art to have the “aura” which Benjamin describes, it must satisfy two conditions: [1] it must have a unique existence, with no replicas floating around elsewhere, and [2] it must be surrounded by a clear historical context.

Now we are able to imagine how an auratic work of art might look. Imagine if I were to draw a horrid stick-figure likeness of George Washington on a piece of notebook paper and hang it on a wall. This may not sound at all like Benjamin’s beautiful description of the auratic mountain range on a summer afternoon, but nevertheless it satisfies the two conditions of the aura. First, it is unique; there are no photocopies, photographs, or forgeries of it elsewhere. And second, it is embedded in an historical context; I might provide an artist’s statement alongside it, explaining the thought processes that went into it, the date it was composed, and any other situations which surrounded its creation. Now, to use a rather banal example, let us consider one of the most-reproduced works of art in history, Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. This painting is undoubtedly a greater work of art in every respect and certainly produces a greater sense of awe than my George Washington stick-figure, but because of the countless reproductions made of the Mona Lisa in books, magazines, art prints, t-shirts, and whatever else, my work possesses one essential quality which Leonardo’s does not: aura.

Here we begin to see the ambivalence which must be associated with the withering of the aura. Without it having been reproduced millions of times, I never would have seen the Mona Lisa, because I have never been to the Louvre, nor do I have the money to travel to see it. Instead, I can simply type “Mona Lisa” into Google, and in less than a second I am able to find more than a million reproductions of it, which may be smaller than the original and made of colored pixels rather than of oil and wood, but nevertheless I am able to see a representation of it. This is drastically different from the time in which it was created. In the early sixteenth century, there was of course only one Mona Lisa, and one would have to travel across the world to see it. One would be hard-pressed to find any person in the modern world who has not seen a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, but it would have been the exact opposite situation in the sixteenth century. But what have I sacrificed by settling for a reproduction rather than demanding the original? According to Benjamin, it is the aura – the “unique apparition of a distance, however near it may be” (23).

It is not only paintings and drawings which lose their aura as a result of being technologically reproduced. It is all types of art. Benjamin gives the examples of architectural photography and musical recordings to illustrate the ambivalence of reproduction. Because of the camera’s or microphone’s ability to “place the copy of the original in situations which the original itself cannot attain” (Benjamin 21), “the cathedral leaves its site to be received in the studio of an art lover; the choral work performed in an auditorium or in the open air is enjoyed in a private room” (Benjamin 22). It is a profound ability of technological reproductions to “meet the recipient halfway” (Benjamin 21), but again we must ask the question of what we are sacrificing by satisfying for the reproduction rather than the original. It is the aura which surrounds the real brick and mortar of the cathedral, which fills the music hall during a live performance, that cannot be expressed through a photograph or headphones.

Let me summarize what we have learned thus far. Each work of art, before it is reproduced, has an aura, which is its unique existence in history. The aura falls victim to modern technological reproduction, which “substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence” (Benjamin 22). So within the reproducibility of the work of art lie both occasions for joy and for regret, for it simultaneously allows the work of art to “meet the recipient halfway”, but, by the same token, these changed circumstances devalue the “here and now” of the work (Benjamin 21). It is now up to us to decide whether or not the death of the aura is an acceptable casualty of the modern age, or if it would be best if technological reproduction had never been achieved.


II.

This section intends to show in what respects the reproduction does not affect the artwork. Most importantly, reproduction cannot affect the aesthetic qualities of the original artwork. The very term “aura” implies that its referent is something that lies not within the artwork, but around it. And since the aesthetic qualities of an artwork lie only within the work of art itself, the aura cannot possibly affect the artwork’s aesthetic value. This is the position which Alfred Lessing takes up in his investigation of the aesthetic value of forgeries. According to Lessing, “the fact of forgery is important historically, biographically, perhaps legally, or… financially; but not, strictly speaking, aesthetically” (100). Lessing cites as an important example of his argument the famous forgery The Disciples at Emmaus, which the true painter Han van Meegeren sold as a lost painting of Vermeer. The painting was received with great praise by all sorts of art critics as “one of Vermeer’s finest achievements” (Lessing 90). It was not until years later, when van Meegeren outed the painting as one of his own creations that critics doubted the greatness of its aesthetic qualities. But if Lessing is correct in asserting that the fact that a painting is a forgery cannot affect its inherent aesthetic value (and I believe he is correct), then those critics have no valid reason to change their opinions of its aesthetic qualities. Of course, the fact that The Disciples at Emmaus is a forgery greatly affects its monetary value, because a true work by Vermeer is worth much more than a mere Vermeer imitator’s. It affects the historical value of the work, because it was first believed to be a newly discovered work by a famous Baroque painter, but then it was revealed to be a modern forgery. But because this revelation did not change the appearance of the artwork, it cannot have changed its aesthetic values.

Granted, the instance of The Disciples at Emmaus is far removed from the issue which Benjamin wished to address – the technological reproduction of artworks. But the effects of forgeries and reproductions upon the original work of art seem to be the same: the destruction of the aura. A perfect forgery of the Mona Lisa would look exactly the same as a perfect reproduction of the Mona Lisa, and their effects upon the artwork are the same, to devalue the “here and now of the work of art” (Benjamin 21) – its aura. So the situations of reproductions and forgeries in fact turn out to be quite similar. Thus, if we conclude that forgeries affect the aura of an artwork, but do not affect its aesthetic qualities, then we may just as well conclude the same about reproductions.


III.

Gleaning what I can from Benjamin’s essay, I cannot imagine that he would disagree with anything that I have argued thus far. I have only attempted to stretch his argument, to find the logical extensions of it. Benjamin provided the idea that technological reproducibility destroys the aura of the artwork, and I have used it to see what technological reproducibility has not destroyed – the aesthetic value of the artwork. But now the question remains: Are we to rejoice for the onset of the age of art’s technological reproducibility or are we to lament it? This question must, then, take the form of another question: How important is art’s aura?

According to Benjamin, “the authenticity of a thing is the quintessence of all that is transmissible from its origin on, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relating to it” (22). Taking “authenticity” as a major component of the aura of an artwork, we must then conclude that any original artwork which preserves its physical duration and historical testimony from the time of its creation – the history including “changes to the physical structure of the work over time, together with any changes in ownership” (Benjamin 21) – is more valuable in the auratic sense than any artwork which has been divorced from its historical context.

An illustration will suffice to expose the point where Benjamin and I disagree. Let us imagine the Parthenon. According to Benjamin, the original Parthenon on the acropolis in Athens is the only Parthenon which preserves its aura, because it is the only one which authentically can claim a history of pagan, Christian, and Islamic worship; it is the only Parthenon which can truthfully claim to have been destroyed by a gunpowder explosion in the seventeenth century. But now imagine a replica of the Parthenon built not as it stands today, crumbling and ancient, but as it would have looked on the day it was completed, illustrious and magnificent. It would be unfair at this point to ask which Parthenon was the greater, so I will ask two questions. Which of the two is more authentic? The original, of course. But which of the two is more aesthetically pleasing? Unless one has a tendency to romanticize the decrepit and dilapidated, one would immediately respond that the replica is more aesthetically pleasing. Now I ask the question, isn’t the replica Parthenon the greater one? I do not mean “greater” in the sense which an art collector might use the term, to establish its monetary or historical value, but in the sense which an art critic should use the term, to establish the aesthetic value of the structure. The answer, if I have provided a convincing illustration, should be a resounding “yes!”

This is not to diminish the value of the aura of a work of art. It is a regrettable loss to say the least. But from the aesthetic perspective, it would be unacceptable to sacrifice aesthetic value on behalf of the aura. The aesthetic quality inherent within an artwork is far more important, and should be defended with much more rigor, than anything that lies outside of the art object – including its aura. Some lament over the aura is appropriate, but it can be dangerous to obsess over it. What Benjamin is in danger of by giving so much attention to the destruction of the aura is of becoming an aesthetician devoted not to aesthetics but to sentiment. Benjamin’s fascination with historical authenticity, his absorption in the “here and now” of the work of art, is analogous to the collector of celebrity memorabilia who cares not about the beauty or aesthetics of his collection, but about the history of it – whether or not Madonna or George Clooney has touched it. As an aesthetician, Benjamin’s main concern is to be with the aesthetic qualities inherent within an artwork. If he wishes to take up the mantle of the historian, then would be the time to discuss the quite important issue of the withering of the aura in the age of mechanical reproducibility.


IV.

I have attempted to show that Benjamin and I are in agreement in the bulk of our arguments. All of his premises I have retained within my essay, endeavoring not to dismiss any of them out of hand, but to investigate them with the utmost respect and seriousness, and also to stretch them to their breaking points. Benjamin’s main claim, which the first section of this essay sought to clarify, is that the aura of a work of art – its authenticity, its “here and now”, its “embeddedness within a tradition” – is destroyed when one seeks to replicate the work of art by technological means. In this essay I have undertaken the task of showing the consequences, both positive and negative, of art reproduction, concluding that the aura of an artwork is a regrettable but acceptable loss for the benefits which modern reproducibility has afforded us. To support this conclusion, I have demonstrated through a philosophical exposition of the effects of forgeries and replicas upon the original work of art that the issues of aura and authenticity hold no sway over the domain of aesthetic value. I do not claim to have done anything in this essay but skim the surface of Benjamin’s profound work, but as for our present concern – the question of aura and authenticity – I have endeavored to provide a sufficient illumination of the consequences of his philosophy.


Works Cited
1. Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility: Second Version.” In The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility and Other Writings on Media. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2008. 9-55.
2. Lessing, Alfred. “What Is Wrong With a Forgery?” In Arguing About Art. Ed. Alex Neill and Aaron Ridley. New York: Routledge, 2008. 89-101.

[Freca - Narrazioni da Divano · Rating 5 out of 5]

Indubbiamente la miglior lettura del mese e anche la più complessa (anche se ammetto di aver fatto più fatica con l'introduzione, anche merito dei vari riferimenti impliciti e espliciti a Hegel, che con il saggio stesso).
Questa edizione ha il vantaggio di affiancare al breve saggio le note con tutte le varianti delle varie versioni così da avere una percezione dell'evoluzione del testo e conseguentemente l'aggiustamento sui dettagli del pensiero dell'autore.
Il concetto di base, semplificato in modo estremo, è che l'arte può cambiare paradigma, cioè significato intrinseco, nelle varie epoche e l'arrivo di nuove tecnologie (in questo caso della fotografia che la priva del suo valore di unicità, ne rimuove la caratteristica intrinseca fino allora definente di irriproducibilità, la sua aurea) semplicemente rivelano questo nuovo ruolo verso cui corrono per essere parte integrante della società che le produce (aggiungerei io anticipando spesso il sentimento generale o meglio esplicandosi prima che la massa stessa gli dia forma). Tutto ciò l'ho trovato estremamente attuale in considerazione al dibattito rispetto alla produzione tramite AI (in quanto personalmente considero al livello a cui siamo ora come tecnologia l'autore chi programma, fornisce l'input e non il computer che elabora dato che è inerte senza stimolo, non ha la scintilla creativa ma ne è solo il mezzo) e applicabile, sfrondato o meno (perché anch'essi si potrebbero prestate a una ricalibrazione su ideologie contemporanee) dei riferimenti ai totalitarismi novecenteschi (unico aspetto che davvero contestualizza la riflessione nello spazio-tempo, dato che l'innovazione tecnologica poteva essere vista più come esempio, letto ora, che come identificazione dell'epoca).
Impossibile non pensare al rapporto technè-arte e se c'è un limite dopo il quale quest'ultima venga del tutto denaturata.

[Roberto · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ha senso riprodurre l'arte?

Questo saggio, molto breve e famoso ma molto "denso", scritto dal filosofo Walter Benjamin nel 1935 tratta l'impatto della riproducibilità "tecnica" sull'opera d'arte, argomento né facile né immediato.

I quadri e le sculture sono sempre stati riprodotti manualmente e le opere musicali altro non sono che una continua ripetizione/riproduzione dell'opera stessa. Benjamin però no, non ci parla di questo tipo di riproduzione; l'oggetto del saggio è la riproduzione "tecnica" delle opere d’arte, quale ad esempio la litografia, la stampa, la scrittura, la fotografia. E il cinema.

E giù definizioni, tanto belle quanto complesse e noiose.

"L'elemento fondamentale dell'opera d'arte è l’hic et nunc, la sua esistenza unica e irripetibile nel luogo in cui si trova”.

"Le circostanze in mezzo alle quali il prodotto della riproduzione tecnica può venirsi a trovare possono lasciare intatta la consistenza dell'opera d'arte, ma in ogni modo determinano la svalutazione del suo hic et nunc... Ciò che viene meno è quanto può essere riassunto con la nozione di "aura""

Tralascio volutamente le definizioni di valore "cultuale" e di valore “espositivo”, veramente poco interessanti. E tralascio pure l'idea dell'arte come prodotto delle economie capitalistico, credo concetto decisamente datato. Cerco invece di tradurre e sintetizzare le cose dette nel libro: una copia di un quadro di Picasso sullo screen saver del nostro PC riduce il valore, la magia e l'unicità del quadro stesso. Il quadro, ora non più unico, non ha piu la sua "aura", è però fruibile da parte delle grandi masse, ossia ne è stata migliorata la diffusione.

Non so se sia vero che l'aura di queste opere ce la siamo giocata (certe riproduzioni di opere son migliori degli originali, alla faccia dell'Aura Magica...), però è un fatto che la ricerca artistica nel novecento sia andata proprio nella direzione della serializzazione e della riproduzione delle opere, con linguaggi propri. Un esempio possono essere l'astrattismo, l’espressionismo e, perché no, la Pop art.

Ora la domanda è: ci volevano una quarantina di pagine per esprimere questo concetto?

Onestamente il libro mi è parso un pochino datato, di difficile digestione (l'aura è peggio di cinque spicchi d'aglio) e sollevante problemi che non vedo. Forse letto nel 1935 poteva avere qualche cosa da dire, ma oggi mi pare un buon esempio di onanismo intellettuale.

[Tosh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perfect size for the airplane trip. One of the Penguin Great Ideas series, this beautifully designed little edition of a new translation of Benjamin's classic essay on the nature of reproduction of images/art/film and what it mean aesthetically as well as culture changes in how we look at an object or work of art.

Also included are essays on Kafka and Proust. Both are excellent.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to love this, but I didn't.

I couldn't share Mr. Benjamin's enthusiasm for arcades and graphology, and his polemics against his contemporaries whom history has forgotten are much less interesting and amusing than Marx's polemics against similarly forgotten people in works like "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" and the "Critique of the Gotha Program."

Mr. Benjamin's Marxism is a little misguided. I can forgive him for misunderstanding the horrors of the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union, because much of the truth was hidden from Western European intellectuals in the 20s and 30s, but I took issue with the way that he insisted on jamming all of history and culture into a Procrustean bed of dialectical materialism. A lot of that part of his writing was nonsense and obscured the smart things in Mr. Benjamin's work. Marx had some interesting, though often wrong, things to say about economics, social classes and the mega-trends of history, but you just can't say that 100% of everything is a reflection of the class struggle. That kind of thinking gave us Trofim Lysenko. Lastly, Mr. Benjamin wrote in a style that is unnecessarily complex and obscure. I didn't enjoy having to reread his sentences multiple times to try to find the candy inside the Tootsie Pop. And too often it seemed that the promised treasure inside was only a lump of clay.

On the other hand, there are some very good things in Mr. Benjamin's writing. I credit him with seeing sooner than others how technology and art interact. Mass publishing, radio, photography and film changed the way that we interact with art in profound ways. A century earlier in "Laocoon," Lessing explained how different forms of artistic expression, e.g., painting vs. sculpture vs drama, are better suited at conveying different sorts of artistic ideas and have different kinds of impacts on their audiences, but Mr. Benjamin goes a step further in seeing how technology changes the entire artistic experience for the creator and his audience and how the intermediation of the technology changes the relationship between them. He was on track to understand that the medium is the message, though he didn't quite get there. And he was right in understanding that all of this has profound political implications. But his hopes for where it would go mostly turned out to be wrong. It's hard to fault him for that part because he was writing at a time when the technologies in question and the businesses and forms of expression around them, though not quite in their infancy were barely toddlers. He couldn't even conceive of where television and the internet would take us over the following century. I was among the people who were equally wrong in predicting in the early days of the internet how the internet was going to put an end to oligopolistic domination of the media and was going make us all open minded and democratic because of the way it gives us such broad access to information and diverse points of view. I do wonder what Mr. Benjamin would have to say about where we are today.

Mr. Benjamin was also ahead of his time in his analysis of the importance of kitsch, graphic art and other popular means of artistic expression, seeing how these things have cultural and social value and sometime embody artistic concepts that are worthy of our attention. Susan Sontag may have done it better half a century later in her essay on camp, but a lot of water had flowed under the bridge between Mr. Benjamin's time and the era in which Ms. Sontag was writing, so she was coming at the question with the benefit of much additional information and historical experience.

[Gloomy · Rating 4 out of 5]

"El culto a las "estrellas", fomentado por el capitalismo de los productores de películas, conserva esa magia de la personalidad que, desde hace tiempo, no es más que el encanto marchito de su carácter mercantil."

[María José L. M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Libro fundamental dado la profundidad de los debates que introduce tanto a nivel estético como político

"Así es la estetización de la política que el fascismo practica. El comunismo le responde con la politización del arte"

[Markus · Rating 4 out of 5]

You get a theory of culture industry, of new media and old media and one of fascism all in 77 pages, stunning

[suvenka · Rating 4 out of 5]

(...)
Cuatro porque WB no sabe usar las notas a pie de página

[benditocastigo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Qué gusto revisitar estos textos :) !!!

Y el estudio introductorio de Maiso y Zamora chefs kiss

[Clara Browne · Rating 4 out of 5]

SURTO!!!!

[Ramin Azodi · Rating 5 out of 5]

- Mechanical reproduction has allowed for artworks to be mass-produced and distributed on a scale never seen before

- New technologies like photography and film have challenged traditional notions of art and aesthetics

- Art now has the ability to reach a much wider audience than ever possible before through mechanical reproduction

- Art is becoming increasingly detached from ritual/religious contexts and becoming more exhibition-based

- Traditional works of art had an "aura" due to their uniqueness and ritual/cult value

- Mechanical reproduction emancipates art from its dependence on ritual and cult value, leading to a decline in aura

- Photography was one of the first truly revolutionary means of reproduction, coinciding with the rise of socialism

- Art began responding to this new reality with the idea of "art for art's sake", removing social/ritual functions

[Talie · Rating 4 out of 5]

در این مقاله ایده های جالبی در درباره ی ادراک هنر در زمان تکثیر، عکاسی، سینما، فاشیسم و... مطرح می شود اما متاسفانه کل مقاله انسجام چندانی ندارد.
بنیامین می گوید فاشیسم سیاست را زیبایی شناسانه می کند و نقطه ی اوج آن در تمجید جنگ فوتوریست هاست،  در حالی که کمونیسم هنر را سیاسی می کند. سینما می تواند ابزار این کار باشد. در فیلم های روسی ( زمان بنیامین ) کارگران در نقش خود بازی می کنند بدین ترتیب آگاهی طبقاتی شان افزود می شود اما کاپیتالیسم کالت ستاره سینما  به راه می اندازد. 
عصر تکثیر حالت ادراک بشر را تغییر داده. در گذشته درک نقاشی فردی بود و احتیاج به غوطه وری متفکرانه در اثر هنری داشت.  اما حال توده های حواس پرت می توانند سینما را درک کنند. 

[final muzak · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films
I love Marvel films

[Simeon Duwel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Er is natuurlijk een reden dat dit essay de geschiedenis in is gegaan als een van de belangrijkste besprekingen van de evoluties binnen (populaire) cultuur en de kunsten. Zoals het een echte Frankfurter betaamt haalt Benjamin zowel de marxistische dialectiek als de Freudiaanse psychoanalyse aan. De gonzende conclusie — dat fascisme tot doel heeft om de massa te mobiliseren zonder de geldende machtsstructuren omver te gooien, en dit bereikt via de esthetisering van kunst — slaat in als een bom, en wel een rake.

[Nicolas]

Classique serré, arguments percutants et intuition implacable. Benjamin y enterre tout simplement l’art au sens noble.

Dissocié de son aura cultuelle, l'art perd son autonomie originelle, désormais livrée au règne du contretype. Ainsi, Benjamin retrace dans cet essai la volonté des masses de « rendre les choses spatialement et humainement « plus proches » de soi. […] un désir tout aussi passionné que leur tendance à déposséder tout phénomène de son unicité au moyen d’une réception de sa reproduction. (p. 20.)

Le traducteur de Baudelaire et de Proust déblaie en cela un terrain critique fertile, encore praticable aujourd’hui : « on assiste […] dans le public à un divorce croissant entre l’esprit critique et la conduite de jouissance, chose manifeste notamment à propos de la peinture. On jouit, sans le critiquer, de ce qui est conventionnel ; ce qui est véritablement nouveau, on le critique avec aversion. » (pp. 55-56) Benjamin termine par ce constat impitoyable : « La quantité est devenue qualité » (p. 69.).

Benjamin se montre par ailleurs, fortement affecté par Berthold Brecht, qu’il cite à profusion, autant dans l’étude de la reproduction technique et ses conséquences sur l'art, que dans l’analyse de l'image cinématographique. Dans la foulée, on trouvera également une analyse séduisante de la guérilla dadaïste - le Dadaïsme, ce courant artistique désirant provoquer l’outrage public et infligeant le « stigmate de la reproduction. » à ses productions artistiques.

Un essai publié en 1935, à l’aube d’un conflit mondial, avec une polarité idéologique à son comble, que Benjamin conclut par un plaidoyer ouvertement antifasciste; épinglant le manifeste futuriste de Marinetti et son mémorable « Fiat ars, pereat mundus » (Que l'art advienne, le monde dût-il périr) : « Voilà l’esthétisation de la politique que pratique le fascisme. Le communisme y répond par la politisation de l’art. » (p. 78.) Une formule partisane, tranchant curieusement avec l’ensemble de l’essai.

[Karellen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short but extremely important text so I’m told mainly because the author was a prominent member of what became known as the Frankfurt School which as everybody who has studied this subject will be aware was at the heart of what we call “critical theory”. Which is kind of why I’m reading this.

So here we have Walter Benjamin - pronounced Ben-ya-meen - let’s get that right. Who sadly died attempting to flee the Nazi regime but luckily for us he left behind some rather seminal texts including this one. I’d also say here I was encouraged to read this after following an episode about the author on one of the growing number of radical podcasts. This copy is a digital version of the book printed by Prism Key Press. No trees felled on my behalf.

Benjamin begins in the preface by stating that when Marx undertook his radical critique of capitalism he explained what might be expected, which was not only that the proletariat would be increasingly exploited, but that ultimately conditions would arise that would make it possible to abolish capitalism. Hooray, I hear you say. Or perhaps not?

Benjamin then makes an another interesting statement: that the concepts he is about to introduce regarding the theory of art are useless for the purposes of fascism. Well, of course, fascists don’t appreciate art, they burn books for instance.

I don’t want to spoil this for other readers, just to say that my personal view is, some of the chapters may seem dated in that he is referring to films from an entirely different era, that is, the immediate pre war period, and it’s impossible to speculate about what the impact of say the French New Wave, or the American cinema of the seventies, Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg etc would have made on Benjamin.

I need to read this again. That’s for sure. But at least it has the advantage of brevity.

[Solar Anus · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Έτσι ο κινηματογράφος είναι το πρώτο καλλιτεχνικό μέσο που είναι σε θέση να δείχνει πως η ύλη επιδρά πάνω στον άνθρωπο."
...
"Όσο κι αν μας είναι οικεία χονδρικά η κίνηση που κάνουμε για να πιάσουμε τον αναπτήρα η το κουτάλι, δεν ξέρουμε ωστόσο σχεδόν τίποτα για το τι συμβαίνει ανάμεσα στο χέρι και στο μέταλλο, κι ακόμη λιγότερο για το πως σχετίζεται αυτό με τις διάφορες θυμικές καταστάσεις στις οποίες βρισκόμαστε... Μόνο η κάμερα μας δείχνει το οπτικά ασύνειδο, όπως η ψυχανάλυση μας δείχνει το ορμικά ασυνείδητο."
...
"Η ανθρωπότητα, που κάποτε ήταν, κατά τον Όμηρο, θέαμα για τους θεούς του Ολύμπου, έχει γίνει τώρα θέαμα για τον εαυτό της. Η αλλοτρίωση της από τον εαυτό της έχει φτάσει σε τέτοιο σημείο που την κάνει να βιώνει την ίδια της την καταστροφή σαι αισθητική απόλαυση πρώτου μεγέθους. Έτσι έχουν τα πράγματα με την αισθητικοποίηση της πολιτικής που καλλιεργεί ο φασισμός. Ο κομμουνισμός του απαντά με την πολιτικοποίηση της τέχνης."

[Feliks · Rating 3 out of 5]

An extremely succinct book of only 49 pps. Some interesting insights but certainly not the deep dissection of mass-market printing I was hoping for. The writing is clear and lucid and several of the ideas are superb--but there's just not enough of it.

[Francesca · Rating 4 out of 5]

got a lot more out of it when reading it in a ‘I wonder if there’s any critical opinions that can be abstracted for an essay’ type light.

https://francesbeau.tumblr.com/post/6...

[Federico · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ho dei dubbi sulla definizione del concetto di aura che per me a volte è solo rappresentazione nell’immanenza. Comunque sempre interessante, meno il saggio di Cacciari che ho fatto l’errore di leggere

[Max Cannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am now authorized to interrogate what you mean by “aura”