WALTER BENJAMIN “THE WORK OF ART IN THE AGE OF MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION”
Read Walter Benjamin’s essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ in Evans & Hall (1999) Visual Culture: The Reader. What do you think about Benjamin’s viewpoint? And Kracauer’s? Make some notes on your learning log. (Boothroyd, 2020:25).
Benjamin’s 1936 views on art, aura authenticity are put forward in his essay “The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1999):
- Though art has always been replicated photography could do this at speed.
- Reproductions of art will always be lacking in the elements of time and space, its unique existence, and the original is proof of authenticity.
- Photography as a process of reproduction is able to enhance aspects possibly unseen by the naked eye, as well as place the object into a place where it couldn’t be otherwise.
- However, when art is mechanically reproduced and loses its physical existence in time, and the physical existence ends, then its transmissibility is gone; Benjamin calls this the loss of “aura”.
- He says that destroying aura by reproduction and transferring its location extracts its uniqueness; Uniqueness is bedded in the fabric of tradition and uniqueness is not transmissible, and distance however close, destroys this.
Benjamin did however believe that reproductions which produced and circulated copies of images enabled more people to view images, increasing communication, viewing and interpretation, and therefore democracy in photography.
I have found it hard to access much about the German critic Siegfried Kracauer and have resorted to Wikipedia for some clarity. He was critical of mechanical reproduction, he thought that memory was under threat and was being challenged by modern technology, particularly photography as it replicates some of the tasks done by memory. His view was that photography fixes one moment in time, where memory draws from various instances; he suggested that photography removes and emotion, essence and meaning from an object, and stressed the ontological relation of the photograph to reality.
Benjamin brought to attention some of modifications he noticed mechanical reproduction brought about the destroying of the aura, but also highlighted the liberation it can bring. Whilst Benjamin connects aura with the presence of the original, and reproduction depreciates this he concluded that some photographed work does retain an aura. Kracauer however was less positive about the effect of technological change on art. Other critics in the 1970s such as Rosalind Krauss and Douglas Crimp focused on the demise of the original piece of art as a sign that the modernist movement was dying.
I believe that as long as reproductions are noted as such, and manipulations of artworks are also noted as such, then there are many positives about being able to share works of art in a wider sense. Being able to share art in an aesthetic of informative manner widely may be more important that authenticity.
References:
Benjamin, W (1969) “The work of art in the age of Mechanical Reproduction” In: Evans, H. (1999) Visual Culture: The Reader. (ed.): SAGE Publications. Pp 72-79 (Accessed 1.10.21)
Boothroyd, S (2020) Photography 3: Body of work coursebook. Open College of the Arts. Barnsley.
Marien, M. W. (2014) Photography: A Cultural History. (s.l.): Laurence King Publishing.
Wikipedia contributors (2021) Siegfried Kracauer. At: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siegfried_Kracauer&oldid=1045423839 (Accessed 1.10.21)
NIKI SOUTH 