A Response to Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

Works of art have in theory always been reproducible. However, during the course of history new means and methods of this reproduction have developed that significantly alter not only the original work of art but the copy as well. Tracing the tools of reproduction from human hands to the camera Benjamin ultimately ends with the conclusion that current modes of duplication result in the loss of the “here and now”. Benjamin suggests that as a result of this absence mechanical copies of original artworks lose their unique existence in space and time thus no longer bear the mark of history.

Benjamin identifies an object’s aura as its sphere of authenticity and authority. These two words recur throughout the essay and at times it is rather unclear whether their escape should be seen as a positive or negative development amongst the masses. When an object loses its authenticity it therefore is severed from its roots in tradition or ritual – the latter of which Benjamin identifies as parasitic (Section V). When tradition, cult, or ritual are no longer a defining aspect of an object’s existence or exhibition the entire social function of any given artwork is revolutionized. In some respects one could suppose that objects are thus divorced of any divinity or timeless significance. But Benjamin believes that this new revolution of sorts will allow opportunities for exhibition to expand into the masses.

Benjamin’s discussion of quantity versus quality was a particularly troubling aspect of his essay as it was mixed with certain nostalgia for artworks past yet a passionate interest in trends future. In his discussion of aura and authenticity Benjamin references early daguerreotype photographs, which are the only technologically produced photographs that exhibit a sense of authority. He describes this unique quality to the photographs as extraordinarily beautiful, and greets them with a sense of excitement and respect. This high level of auratic respect never seems to carry into descriptions of later art forms Benjamin discusses. However, he does note that in the contemporary era masses seem to prefer quantity to quality as it provides a completely different interactive experience that is not bad but rather fascinating. This conflicting discussion forced me to wonder: is the abandonment of the aura bad?

While tracing defining developments in new art forms over time Benjamin clearly becomes fascinated by the medium of film. Film is vastly different from its closest relative, photography, because it does not capture a specific point in time. It is the antithesis of a work created in a single stroke. Furthermore, traditional still camera’s produced an image that was taken from only one vantage point. Films (both sound and silent) are conversely created from scenes shot multiple times from various angles. Actors no longer perform original pieces in front of audiences but rather scenes that can be manipulated, rearranged, doctored, or deleted by producers, editors, directors, and cinematographers working on any given film. The entire process of making films is thus reliant upon the idea of intervention (Section X).