Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Walter Benjamin’s definition of the phrase “work of art” is very unique as he relates to the term aura. The best way to define aura is when something has a distinctive quality to it and/or character to it. To add, Benjamin goes into greater depths to explain that it is important to find a relation to the natural world and to see if the work of art is related to certain types of values (cult or exhibition, as stated in the text). Benjamin also creates another interesting perspective explaining that we humans use our experiences of art and media to create our entire sensory experience of the world. I’ve personally never thought twice how my sensory experiences were developed in life, let alone consider art is the dictator of these. As it relates to media, Benjamin goes further and claims that film is what truly manifests media. This is much easier to understand because film and media occur on television, one of the most influential pieces of technology to Americans today.

Benjamin goes on to trace the development of the means of production as it relates to art work. For Greeks, the only means possible back then were casting and stamping, casting being used for many forms of statues. Shortly thereafter, a method of woodcutting became available and this made graphic art mechanically reproducible as more copies could be made. He goes on to explain that there is just one problem with the reproduction of a piece of artwork: it’s presence in time and its unique existence. This dictates that no matter how perfect any piece of artwork is in a given time and place, it is most clearly understood back in it’s timeframe of production. This would seem because the creator of the artwork had more than likely produced the artwork based off of how the times and conditions of society were back at that given time, not necessarily planning for what might be anticipated in x number of years. Therefore, if someone tried to forge another person’s artwork, the forged piece would have absolutely no aura because the one forging hasn’t based the artwork off of anything except proving that one is dumb enough to copy another artist. This form of copying can be best described when he states:

“The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many copies it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation it reactivates the object reproduced” (Benjamin 365).

Benjamin takes another huge step in this piece by comparing a painter and a cameraman as it relates to truly being involved in the situation: “The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web” (Benjamin 373). This goes to show that the painter has created a whole painting because everything is being seen at once. On the other hand, a cameraman is only producing something that is being pieced together, seeing that the view is constantly changing.

Benjamin concludes with other unique arguments later in the summary about the relationships between Dadaism and film. His bold statement is that, “Dadaism attempted to create by pictoral – and literary – means the effects which the public today seeks in the film” (375). Basically, it appears that the Dadaists attempted to destroy their own aura through painting, thus showing that they could give two hoots less about the money value of their work.