Citation for the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

1935 essay by Walter Benjamin

In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), Walter Benjamin addresses the artistic and cultural, social, economic, and political functions of art in a capitalist order.

"The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), by Walter Benjamin, is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of an objet d'art.^[ane] That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of fine art would exist inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Deutschland, Benjamin's essay presents a theory of art that is "useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a mass-culture order.^[2]

The bailiwick and themes of Benjamin'south essay: the aura of a work of art; the artistic authenticity of the artefact; its cultural potency; and the aestheticization of politics for the product of art, became resources for research in the fields of art history and architectural theory, cultural studies and media theory.^[three]

The original essay, "The Work of Art in the Historic period of its Technological Reproducibility", was published in three editions: (i) the German edition, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in 1935; (2) the French edition, L'œuvre d'fine art à l'époque de sa reproduction mécanisée, in 1936; and (3) the German revised edition in 1939, from which derive the contemporary English translations of the essay titled "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction".^[iv]

Summary [edit]

In "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) Walter Benjamin presents the thematic basis for a theory of fine art by quoting the essay "The Conquest of Ubiquity" (1928), by Paul Valéry, to establish how works of art created and developed in past eras are different from contemporary works of art; that the understanding and handling of fine art and of artistic technique must progressively develop in order to sympathise a work of art in the context of the modern fourth dimension.

Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose ability of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. Just the amazing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, get in a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Cute. In all the arts in that location is a concrete component which can no longer be considered or treated equally it used to exist, which cannot remain unaffected past our mod knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor infinite nor time has been what information technology was from time immemorial. We must expect keen innovations to transform the unabridged technique of the arts, thereby affecting creative invention itself and perhaps even bringing near an astonishing change in our very notion of art.^[5]

Creative product [edit]

In the Preface, Benjamin presents Marxist analyses of the organisation of a capitalist society and establishes the place of the arts in the public sphere and in the individual sphere. He then explains the socio-economical conditions to extrapolate developments that further the economic exploitation of the proletariat, whence ascend the social weather condition that would abolish commercialism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of fine art is not an exclusively modern human action, citing examples such as artists manually copying the work of a principal creative person. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the ways for the mechanical reproduction of fine art, and their furnishings upon society'south valuation of a work of art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the stamp mill in Aboriginal Greece; and the modern arts of woodcut relief-press, engraving, etching, lithography, and photography, all of which are techniques of mass production that allow greater accuracy in reproducing a piece of work of art.^[half-dozen]

Authenticity [edit]

The aura of a work of fine art derives from authenticity (uniqueness) and locale (physical and cultural); Benjamin explains that "even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one chemical element: Its presence in fourth dimension and infinite, its unique existence at the identify where information technology happens to be" located. He writes that the "sphere of [artistic] authenticity is outside the technical [sphere]" of mechanised reproduction.^[seven] Therefore, the original work of art is an objet d'art independent of the mechanically authentic reproduction; nonetheless, by changing the cultural context of where the artwork is located, the being of the mechanical copy diminishes the aesthetic value of the original work of fine art. In that way, the aura—the unique aesthetic say-so of a work of art—is absent from the mechanically produced re-create.^[viii]

Value: cult and exhibition [edit]

Regarding the social functions of an artefact, Benjamin said that "Works of fine art are received and valued on dissimilar planes. Two polar types stand up out; with i, the emphasis is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work. Artistic production begins with formalism objects destined to serve in a cult. One may assume that what mattered was their existence, non their being on view."^[9] The cult value of religious art is that "certain statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella; certain madonnas remain covered well-nigh all year round; certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on basis level."^[ten] In practice, the diminished cult value of a religious artefact (an icon no longer venerated) increases the artefact'southward exhibition value equally art created for the spectators' appreciation, considering "it is easier to exhibit a portrait bust, that tin can be sent hither and there [to museums], than to exhibit the statue of a divinity that has its fixed identify in the interior of a temple."^[11]

The mechanical reproduction of a work of art voids its cult value, considering removal from a fixed, private space (a temple) and placement in mobile, public space (a museum) allows exhibiting the art to many spectators.^[12] Further explaining the transition from cult value to exhibition value, Benjamin said that in "the photographic paradigm, exhibition value, for the first time, shows its superiority to cult value."^[thirteen] In emphasising exhibition value, "the work of fine art becomes a creation with entirely new functions," which "later on may be recognized every bit incidental" to the original purpose for which the artist created the Objet d'art.^[xiv]

As a medium of creative production, the movie theatre (moving pictures) does not create cult value for the pic, itself, because "the audition'due south identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera. Consequently, the audience takes the position of the camera; its approach is that of testing. This is not the approach to which cult values may be exposed." Therefore, "the film makes the cult value recede into the background, not only past putting the public in the position of the critic, merely too past the fact that, at the movies, this [critical] position requires no attending."^[15]

Art as politics [edit]

The social value of a work of art changes equally a society change their value systems; thus the changes in artistic styles and in the cultural tastes of the public follow "the mode in which human sense-perception is organized [and] the [artistic] medium in which it is accomplished, [which are] adamant non only past Nature, only past historical circumstances, likewise."^[7] Despite the socio-cultural effects of mass-produced, reproduction-art upon the aura of the original piece of work of art, Benjamin said that "the uniqueness of a piece of work of art is inseparable from its being embedded in the textile of tradition," which separates the original work of art from the reproduction.^[7] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of fine art also emancipated "the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual,"^[seven] thereby increasing the social value of exhibiting works of art, which practice progressed from the private sphere of life, the owner's enjoyment of the aesthetics of the artefacts (usually High Art), to the public sphere of life, wherein the public enjoy the same aesthetics in an fine art gallery.

Influence [edit]

In the late-twentieth-century boob tube program Ways of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and developed the themes of "The Piece of work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explicate the contemporary representations of social class and racial caste inherent to the politics and production of fine art. That in transforming a work of art into a commodity, the modern means of artistic production and of creative reproduction have destroyed the aesthetic, cultural, and political authorisation of art: "For the offset time ever, images of fine art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free," because they are commercial products that lack the aura of authenticity of the original objet d'art.^[16]

Come across also [edit]

• Aestheticization of politics
• Art for art's sake

References [edit]

1. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects (2011) Routledge, London, p. 0000.
2. ^ Scannell, Paddy. (2003) "Benjamin Contextualized: On 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'" in Canonic Texts in Media Enquiry: Are There Any? Should There Exist? How Virtually These?, Katz et al. (Eds.) Polity Printing, Cambridge. ISBN 9780745629346. pp. 74–89.
3. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects, Routledge, London, 2011.
4. ^ Notes on Walter Benjamin, "The Piece of work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", a commentary by Gareth Griffiths, Aalto University, 2011. ^{[ permanent expressionless link ]}
5. ^ Paul Valéry, La Conquête de l'ubiquité (1928)
6. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 01.
7. ^ ^{a b c d} Walter Benjamin (1968). Hannah Arendt (ed.). "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Illuminations . London: Fontana. pp. 214–18. ISBN9781407085500.
8. ^ Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2008). "Benjamin'south Aura," Critical Inquiry No. 34 (Winter 2008)
9. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
10. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
11. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
12. ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Section II". Samizdat Online. 2016-07-xx. Retrieved 2020-05-22 .
13. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
14. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
15. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 5–6.
16. ^ Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin Books, London, 1972, pp. 32–34.

External links [edit]

• Complete text of the essay, translated
• Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (1932-1941) - Download the original text in French, "50'œuvre d'fine art à l'époque de sa reproduction méchanisée," in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung Jahrgang V, Félix Alcan, Paris, 1936, pp. 40–68 (23MB)
• Consummate text in German (in German)
• Fractional text of the essay, with commentary by Detlev Schöttker (in German)
• A comment to the essay on "diségno"

depasqualecuses1966.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction

Share this post