Cough

Response to “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”
The article “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” by Walter Benjamin serves as a critical analysis of art and technology, and the ability to reproduce art.  Written without any major claims, the tone of the article and selected insight provides the reader with the assumption that this reproductive state is damaging art.  The purist views come across as bold yet old, failing, and unresponsive to the nature of art.
In the article two terms are brought to surface, Aura and Cult.  These aspects are said to be lost by the reproduction of art.  This is a poor evaluation.  Art’s aura is not affected by reproduction in theory.  If a piece is perfectly replicated there is no difference, the aura remains.  Cult is sacrificial, and should be looked at as a positive manner.  Fine art is plagued by cult; mass review of art makes for a more fitting art world, one that speaks better to the people of the world.  Art should be accusable, easy, and rapid.  There is no reason why reproduction can damage art.
The article goes on to discuss the mediums of reproduction, focusing primarily on film.  The initial connection the author draws between film and theater is misguided.  There is certainly an assumption that film is theater captured, but this is far from the truth.  The artistic quality of film extends far beyond live action and mise-en-scene; Film exists in a manner of ways.  The versatility of film, the bending of reality possible, the editing, cuts, splices, transitions, film stock, manipulation of color.  All of these are surreal elements of film that are not negative aspects, as they don’t exist anywhere else.  The reproducibility of film in no way affects the capabilities of film.
The drawn upon debate between painters and photographers is also a weak point to base any argument off.  There is no worthwhile debate, they both exist separate of each other.  It does not mean that their qualities cannot be combined, or that intermedia bridges cannot be built.  The qualities of photography differ from that of painting.  The existence of photography has strengthened painting, by encouraging it to expand beyond duties photography better fulfills.  These duties are not aura less either; they are of a different nature.
The source of such uncohesiveness in this article is the date at which it is written.  There is a difference in capitalism, art and sociological existence.  The issues are typical of a pure view of art and new issues arise today with the arise of digital art and crowdsorced art.  But a similar approach of separation should be used with these new forms as well, one that encourages intermedia but does not dispel each medias use and product.  Similar debates exist today, but there is no death of art or emotion approaching only ambiguity in practice.

Advertisement