The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction by Walter Benjamin

As part of the first project of Part Two to the course, we are asked to read this seminal 1936 essay by Walter Benjamin and address certain points.

Benjamin starts by pointing out that reproduction of art took a leap forward firstly with the invention of lithography and was then surpassed by photography. He notes in particular that pictorial reproduction could keep pace with speech. 

"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." This includes changes in its physical condition. 

Benjamin argues that the quality of art's presence is depreciated by mechanical reproduction. He contrasts a landscape, which is unaffected by being reproduced, with a work of art, which Benjamin says has its 'authenticity' removed. It is devoid of time and place and loses its history. This is what he calls the 'aura' of the work of art. Reproduction "detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition." 

The uniqueness of a work of art is related to the fabric of tradition. The Greeks made the Statue of Venus an object of veneration; Middle Age clerics viewed it as an "ominous idol", but both accepted its uniqueness, its aura. 

The aura of a work of art - its uniqueness -  has its basis in ritual but mechanical reproduction (MR) "emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual". The function of art is reversed, being based on politics rather then ritual.

Benjamin argues that works of art are valued on different planes: the cult value and the exhibition value. Ancient cave paintings represented the first to the societies in which they were produced, only later being recognized as a work of art. Photography and film concentrate on the exhibition value as they cannot be tied to time and place - they cannot be authentic. 

Looking at the specific questions raised in the course notes:

• How does Benjamin state his case for the removal of art's elite nature?
• What do you make of his ideas of the 'aura' of the work

The answer is that MR in his view removes the aura - the authenticity - of the work of art in time and place. He does make the point explicitly, but what in effect Benjamin says is that the work of art loses its being as an object, being replaced by its importance of its representational quality. 

I think this argument is powerful and relevant. Jeff Koons sells a work of art that is unique for $58m, the highest price ever achieved for the work of a living artist. (Waxman, 2013). It is concrete. Compare this to the highest price achieved for a photograph of  $4.3m, Andreas Gursky's Rhine II (Waters, 2011) . The factor of 13 in the difference in price achieved cannot be unrelated to the known uniqueness of the sculpture as opposed to the image.

Benjamin's argument is similar to that of Fry, discussed in Howells and Negreiros (2012, pp 37-39). Fry distinguished between the actual and the imaginative life. Seeing something leads to reaction in the imagination. Fry's arguments take a different course here as he leads towards the endeavour of understanding how art communicates rather than what it communicates but the strands of his thoughts and those of Benjamin lead to a common conclusion: the politicisation and democratisation  of art; the removal of the sense of aura. 

• Does the improvement in the methods of reproduction, colour printing, digital imaging and television, strengthen or weaken his case?

Benjamin claims that MR is inherent in the very technique of film production. It enforces mass distribution because films are so expensive that no one can buy one. That might have been true in 1936, but the improvements mentioned above render the argument false now. I found Berger's Ways of Seeing on You Tube for nothing in 2 minutes. I think the answer is now the reverse: anyone can create art, whether it be digital photography or an online video or a Facebook entry for example, so the aura is removed by the simplicity of production as opposed to the reproduction.

• Does the failure of the Soviet experiment alter the validity of his case?

The Soviet experiment manifested itself in early days with Anti Art movements and the rise in photography, which was seen as a medium that demystified and democratised art through the work of Rodchenko and others. I am not sure its failure is strongly relevant to Benjamin's case. Anti elitism arises in many guises at different times, witness Berger's argument for example. The far more powerful influence has been that of technological change and the way that has been adopted in art, as set out in Assignment 1.

References:

Waters (2011)Why is Andreas Gursky's Rhine II the most expensive photograph? Available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8884829/Why-is-Andreas-Gurskys-Rhine-II-the-most-expensive-photograph.html. Accessed on 26 February 2014.

Waxman (2013) An Orange Balloon Dog Sold for $58m Available from  http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/11/14/an-orange-balloon-dog-sold-for-58-4-million-so-here-are-10-cool-jeff-koons-balloon-pieces/. Accessed on 26 February 2014.

Ways of Seeing by John Berger

So much more of the meaning of Berger's treatise can be understood by actually watching his series. Here is episode one as presented on You Tube. My notes follow

Photography meant that paintings were no longer unique to the place where they were hung but copies can now be placed in familiar surroundings.

Painting was often an integral part of the building. Icons are no longer specific to a location but can be transported to home. When you later see an original you see it as the original of the reproduction and therefore its "first meaning is no longer to be found in what is says but what it is." (p21 of book)

"It is the image of the painting which travels now - the meaning is transmittable.

"The National Gallery catalogue is for art experts" Da Vinci's The Virgin of the Rocks has 14 pages of closely researched text to prove it is the original, for example. Art needs to be stripped of false mystery and false religiosity.

Paintings are silent and still so can be manipulated by movement - zoom in to the detail and some of the overall meaning of the image is lost. You can add sound too and change your view of a painting as a result (he evidences with a painting by Caravaggio). The painting is no longer a constant but the meaning can change by what is around it. 

Berger is scornful of the 'mystification' that surrounds artistic commentary, evidenced by repeating some words of a recent (as in 1972) analysis of Hals' Regents of the Old Men's Alms House and Regentesses of the Old Men's Alms House. He then compares this approach to that of children before they become 'mystified'. He shows a group of children a painting by Carvaggio. What is particularly noticeable is that the children are more direct - to them the gender of the central character is of key interest, the girls favouring a woman, the boys a man. Berger points out that Caravaggio was homosexual but the children did not need to know that to realise there is ambiguity.

valuation 

This is a classic and has been acknowledged as such for a long time. It is just the first of four episodes and I feel the need to see the rest, if not now then over the period of doing the course.

Berger has been criticised a lot since the programme (see my notes on Howells and Negreiros - Ideology) but some of that, notably by H&N themselves, lose the central core of Berger's argument: that the way we look at art is influenced by the fact of its replicability, and that replicability means that one's view of a painting can/will be manipulated by what is juxtaposed with it, whether other visual stimuli, or audio. That is surely nowadays viewed as mainstream and not at all contentious. That Berger may have gone too far in some respects does not invalidate everything he said. I particularly like his view of the mystification of art commentary, as I believe that there is a conspiracy of complication in the world of academic art - there is a perceived need to use pompous and pretentious language as a method of self promotion without adding (indeed detracting from) the message. Clarity is to be avoided at all costs. Succinctness sucks.   

Having seen episode one, I consider it important to see all four episodes and will make further notes.