Blog Posting #3
1) Can the “mechanical reproduction” that Benjamin discusses be compared to an idea of “digital reproduction” today?
One of the first things Benjamin says about reproduction as a whole is that “in principle a work of art has always been reproducible.” He follows this with the ideas of students copying the work of others, or masters perfecting their crafts. This concept alone helped me relate to the ideas of “digital reproduction” of today. The example of students copying the work of an instructor can easy be applied to our class and the many in class exercises or tutorials given by the professor. Benjamin continues by defining mechanical reproduction as “something new”, as he goes into the history reproducibility as seen the art world. This “something new” can be related to idea of “digital reproduction” later in the article as Benjamin touches on the ideas of originality. He says “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.” I relate this to “digital reproduction” in that many time in the digital world, people use the work of others to create their own, and although the piece (take for example out upcoming collages) becomes “original” in its own ways, it would never exist if we didn’t have tools to reproduce old images in a new way. This is where I can relate Benjamin’s thoughts on technical reproduction to digital reproduction as he explains that this type of reproduction requires ‘putting a copy of an original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself. ‘ My final connections come from Benjamin’s statement that “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 also try to relate this to the “reproducibility” of our collage project (using digital reproduction). We may not alter someone’s digital image or art other than cropping out a background for example, but our use of that images still might not be as powerful simply because it is not being viewed as an original, but rather a copy. This final relationship can be further touched upon on page 5 where Benjamin is quoted, “An analysis of art in the age of mechanical reproduction must do justice to these relationships, for they lead us to an all-important insight: for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. […] But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice—politics.”
2) Explain what Benjamin means when he refers to the “aura” of something.
What Benjamin means when he refers to the “aura” of something can be explained as simply as possible as originality/uniqueness. He goes into a bit more detail as he begins to explain that there are two ways in which the “aura” of something is perceived. Benjamin explains that “the manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well” and that “if changes in the medium of contemporary perception can be comprehended as decay of the aura, it is possible to show its social causes.” Benjamin it referring to the ideas that not only does the originality and uniqueness matter to the art’s “aura” but that the process and time (history) it took in order for the art to gain such an “aura” are both important to how the art will impact the social world. There is also a section about auras later in the article that some people might not have caught. I found Benjamin’s thoughts on the “aura” of art very intriguing and puzzling as I processed the following information in relation to modern times, as well as, I hope it helps clear up what Benjamin perceived as the auras of different forms of art:
“This situation might also be characterized as follows: for the first time—and this is the effect of the film—man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence;there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separatedfor the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camerais substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.”
3) Benjamin makes an analogy in the text contrasting the relationship between a magician and a surgeon and the relationship between a painter and photographer. Expand this to the contemporary moment – where would Benjamin put the “digital artist”?
To understand this question, I had to re-read some of the passages in the article where Benjamin makes these contrasting comparisons. From what I could gather, Benjamin is trying to express that technique influences the outcomes. The following is what really solidified what I think Benjamin was trying to accomplish with the above relationships: “The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web.” Benjamin is expressing a sort of wide view versus zoomed in approach towards life and obviously art. With that said, I feel like Benjamin would have a very difficult time trying to put the “digital artist” in either of these completely open or narrowed down type of classifications, because the “digital artist” can easily fall into both. A digital artist might create of work of art from scratch, as a painter might, but a digital artist might also act as a cameraman using tools to enhance instead of create. In relation to the magician and surgeon, a digital artist can crop an entire background out like a magician making someone disappear, or a digital artist can change a single pixel from blue to red like a surgeon removing a finger instead of the entire arm.
4) Benjamin ends with a rather stunning Epilogue where he discusses the intersection of war, art, and politics. Do you agree with his assessment, and does it still hold today if so?
At multiple points within the Epilogue, I find myself agreeing with Benjamin. The most powerful statement I could use to relate the three topics above into one would have to be the following: “The destructiveness of war furnishes proof that society has not been mature enough to incorporate technology as its organ, that technology has not been sufficiently developed to cope with the elemental forces of society.” I would agree with Benjamin that the over influenced power of technology has increased the chances of war, has destroyed art while trying to create it, and has decreased the connections between politics and society. I also find the quote Benjamin uses from Marinetti as a helpful tool to really understand how politics cause war, and war in turn creates art. I think many people don’t realize the immediate forms of art in war, but I’ve always been taught that war is an art in itself; “the art of war”. Based on that, I think many of the ideas brought out by Benjamin’s Epilogue can still be applied to today, if not more. We use social media to bash and batter strangers, friends, family, society, and the world as a whole on almost a daily basis; based on our biased belief system that politics are nothing but evil and corrupt, and by utilizing technology to create images and videos and “proof” that one opinion is better than another. I can directly relate this to the ideas behind Benjamin saying “self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order.”
5) Think of some of your favorite pieces of popular culture, keeping in mind Benjamin’s and Ross’s essays. How do you think that the technology of their dissemination affects the meaning of the work?
Touching on the ways of how technology distributes pieces of popular culture today, I think Benjamin and Ross would both agree that there is a lack of character. If something is posted on social media and suddenly becomes viral, everyone is suddenly forced to believe or not believe. This affects the meaning of the work in ways like Ross explains in that as, “chronically disapproving as these thinkers were, they were not disengaged from the culture of their day. In order to dissect it, they bent over it.” So many disputes and arguments stem from minute details, of say a video, that in all reality are just people looking to prove their own opinions, not legitimate arguments. Most propagation efforts and broadcasting techniques (like the internet or TV) that technology has given us such easy access too has crucially diminished the “aura” of information in my opinion. Everything today is about the quickest time, the majority rules, and how to get personal gain from something. The spread of news and media can be compared to an uncontrollable wildfire; which in turn creates those who both feed the fire and those who do everything in their power to put it out. It would be nice if we could all just sit around a camp fire, and let it die out on its own, but instead technology has given us the “power” to destroy others in the process of building ourselves up, which is truly a shame.