On Walter Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’
A reflection article
It was around 2019 that iconic socks and clothes (e.g., we bare bears, avengers cartoons, popular artworks, etc.) had penetrated the local market. I am particularly fascinated by the aesthetic appeal of socks whose design takes reference to famous paintings. As proof of that, I purchased two pairs of socks, the first one features Edvard Munch’s “The Scream”, and the other one features Vincent Van Gogh’s “Starry Night”.
If you would try to visit the Internet, you could find several reproductions of the “Starry Night” that are for sale. The photograph that I have attached in this essay, I found in the website called The Van Gogh Gallery. There is no certainty that the photos they exhibit in their website are the legitimate photos of Van Gogh’s artworks. Even if they claim that their copies are legitimate, the aura has gradually withered along with its series of photographic reproductions. Talking about aura, how does Walter Benjamin define this term?
As he noted in his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” aura encompasses the “atmosphere of detached and transcendent beauty and power supporting cultic societies.” “It also includes the legitimacy accorded to the object by a lengthy historical existence” (Larsen n.d.). It is a “unique phenomenon of a distance however close it may be” (Benjamin 1969, 21). By that, Benjamin is passionate about pushing for the idea that we may get physically close to an artwork, but we remain distant because it exists in the time and space where it originally is. Its unapproachability makes it a major characteristic of a cult image.
In reading Benjamin’s essay, it appears that authenticity is crucial to how aura is preserved, and how its presence is felt. Authenticity is only achieved through the “presence of the original”. That is the fact that makes the authentic value of an artwork impossible to be reproduced, no matter how technical the reproduction is (Benjamin 1969, 3). The act of reproducing multiple copies of an artwork becomes an act that removes the aura from the works. As included in the description of the painting, The Van Gogh Gallery (n.d.) takes pride in the fact that the painting (or copies of it) is “absolutely everywhere.”
Emphasizing further, the website claims that we can see it on “coffee, mugs, t-shirts, towels, magnets, etc.” Despite the ubiquity of the artwork, the original image of it has suffered perversion, and all the copies have something in common: they “lack the ‘authentic’ aura of their source” (Larsen n.d.).
Art’s Loss of Aura in Modern Conditions
Benjamin’s central claim in his essay is that in the context of modernity, “art has lost its aura, which is destroyed by mechanical reproduction, or mass production” (Scannell 2002, 77). What distinguishes a work of art from other works is its unique quality that is “embedded in the fabric of tradition” (Benjamin 1969, 6). When reproduction comes into play with the work of art, that tradition gets severed from the reproduced object, thus, the depreciation of the art’s authentic presence. He claims that the unique existence of an object gets replaced by the reproductions of it. It is in this replacement that the aura (e.i., the cult value) gets overshadowed by the quantity of its reproduced copies and their exhibition value.
This could be bad news for the artworld, but Benjamin (1969) seemed to be optimistic about the mechanical reproduction of art objects. He sounded sympathetic towards the privileges of modern technologies to mass produce certain artworks, speaking of its value. “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual”(6). This falls under the logical assumption that Benjamin was neither worried about the destruction of aura, nor was he bothered by the status quo where the society was ruled by capitalism.
What was Benjamin thinking about? He probably held onto the notion that the destruction of aura through mechanical reproduction and mass production implies democratization of art (Scannell 2002). His essay has a strong point in this idea, and I take an affirmative position on it. Now that Van Gogh’s art is continuously reproduced and exhibited globally, the proletariat class of the society has had the opportunity to experience the art that, before, was exclusively enjoyed by a few elite. Although, along with the democratizing role of mechanical reproduction is a compromise — and, personally, a sad fact — that the “sense of reverence for the auratic art object is shattered” (78). That is the price of subscribing to the culture of reproduction. However, I still see the opportunity of experiencing auratic art if we opt to experience them, not anywhere, but in their specific location where its cultic value is preserved. That is why there are museums and other art institutions. Indeed, there are tons of reproduced versions of the “Starry Night”, but the original painting still lives, and its aura remains. At least we get to collectively experience art, even with the discrepancy in the authentic presence.
Consequences of A Democratized Art
In Scannell’s (2002) essay called “Benjamin Contextualized: On ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’”, Benjamin was really asserting the equal relationship between and among authors, products, and audience. Normally, works of art are being worshiped by its audience, or it extends to worshiping the author or artist. What he suggests is a “collaborative relationship in which the author gets down from his pedestal and aligns himself with the audience (the masses), takes their point of view, and gives it expression in his work” (79).
This idea is indicative of democratization of art where works of art become accessible to the public. By accessible, not only does it mean availability of art, but the quality of art that caters to the level of interpretation of the audience. Benjamin is suggesting that art be a form of expression that the masses exert no effort to interpret and contemplate about. In this situation, the masses become passive consumers of art. The masses exhibit a more “relaxed attitude” towards the “new forms of mass culture” (e.g., films). Concentrating on experiencing the aura of art products becomes even more of a struggle. Binge-watching movie series can be done simultaneously with other stuff, such as chatting with friends online. They can engage in the film in a “state of distraction” (Scannell 2002, 78). This resonates with the ancient sentiment that “masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator” (Benjamin 1969, 18).
These are the main reasons why Adorno (as cited in Scannell 2002) was displeased when Benjamin sent a copy of his essay. Adorno is the proponent of autonomous art, the kind of art that is a total opposite of heteronomous art (i.e., the art that is designed for mass culture, and governed with various factors, especially “profit motive”). Heteronomous art agrees with Benjamin’s suggestion — a culture that presents easy, accessible, and simple pleasures.
Reiterating their difference, autonomous art obeys not any external force, but its own laws (85). Adorno recognizes and defends that autonomous art is “difficult”, and that it requires deliberate effort and commitment on the part of the consumer [i.e., spectator, reader, or listener (86)].
Adorno’s position seems to be more leaning towards the auratic art where works of art are not reproduced, and are created not for the sake of the audience’s interpretation. The slogan “art for art’s sake” applies in this context. Art ought to be created without considering external factors (e.g., marketability). It should be made for its own sake alone. In this way, people would not take advantage of art, and that they would consume art in a way that allows them to get absorbed by it. It is worth emphasizing that “art should be difficult” and authentic. “If it offered few pleasures, if its appeal was limited, it was nevertheless true to itself” (Scannell 2002, 86).
Political Realm as Theater
In his essay, Benjamin acknowledged how the aura of artworks dissipates when they undergo mechanical reproduction. Adorno showed his sympathy towards auratic art, and his dislike to the democratized art that can be enjoyed passively; he called it “culinary consumption.”
Beyond the discourse on authenticity and reproduction, Benjamin has also shown his interest in politics; in its being regarded as theater from the perspective of the state and the powerful. A fascist state is “committed to preserving unequal economic and social relations” (Scannell 2002, 81). It offers the working-class masses a space to express their political ideologies, but still within the structure that they aim to overthrow. What fascism does is “it transforms politics into theater”, but they are the authoritative agent that directs the dynamics of the spectacle. Participants have the agency to engage directly in politics, but “cannot effect change” (Scannell 2002, 82).
In the present condition of social media giants, specifically Twitter, people are convinced that their active engagement in online political discourses compels the national leaders to make a decisive move in addressing the major problems that our country faces. As claimed by the critical theorists specializing on social media, slacktivism or clicktivism holds no real effect towards authority (Fuchs 2014). In other words, we are given space to express our dissent and demands but we are only being watched as actors in a theater. The reason there is, is that, revolting in social media does little to no harm as opposed to going out physically and rallying before the palace. Gladwell (2010 as cited in Fuchs 2014) claimed that social media would “make it easier for activists to express themselves, and but it’s harder for that expression to have any impact.” Unless people go out in the streets, and show a collective force, the state will remain undisturbed. The state only changes its operation when it is threatened. The real threat comes not in the fake aura of digital rally, but in the enraged flesh and thunderous voices that pervade the streets.
References
Benjamin, Walter. 1969. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Illuminations, Hannah Arendt (ed.), Harry Zohn (trans.). New York: Schocken Books.
Fuchs, Christian. 2014. “Twitter and Democracy: A New Public Sphere.” In Social Media: A Critical Introduction, pp. 179–208. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Larsen, Erik. n.d. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. The Modernism Lab. https://campuspress.yale.edu/modernismlab/the-work-of-art-in-the-age-of-mechanical-reproduction/.
Scannell, Paddy. 2002. “Benjamin Contextualized: On “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In: Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are there any? Should there be? How about these?, Katz, Elihu, John Durham Peters, Tamar Liebes, and Avril Orloff (ed.). pp. 74–89. Cambridge, UK Polity Press.
The Van Gogh Gallery. n.d. “Vincent Van Gogh: Starry Night.” Accessed August 15, 2022, vangoghgallery.com. https://vangoghgallery.com/painting/starry-night.html.
