The Work of Art in Its Age of Technical Reproducibility
In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), Walter Benjamin addresses the creative and cultural, social, economic, and political functions of art in a backer society.
"The Piece of 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.[i] That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the product of art would exist inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin's essay presents a theory of art that is "useful for the conception of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a mass-culture society.[ii]
The subject and themes of Benjamin's essay: the aura of a work of art; the artistic actuality of the artefact; its cultural authority; 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.[3]
The original essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility," was published in three editions: (i) the German edition, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in 1935; (ii) the French edition, L'œuvre d'art à fifty'époque de sa reproduction mécanisée, in 1936; and (iii) the High german revised edition in 1939, from which derive the gimmicky English language translations of the essay titled "The Piece of work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction."[four]
Summary [edit]
In "The Piece of work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) Walter Benjamin presents the thematic basis for a theory of fine art past quoting the essay "The Conquest of Ubiquity" (1928), by Paul Valéry, to institute how works of art created and developed in by eras are different from gimmicky works of fine art; that the understanding and treatment of art and of artistic technique must progressively develop in order to sympathize a work of art in the context of the modern time.
Our fine arts were adult, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, past men whose power of activeness upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. But the astonishing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, go far a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a concrete component which tin can no longer be considered or treated equally it used to exist, which cannot remain unaffected by our mod noesis and ability. For the concluding twenty years neither matter nor infinite nor time has been what it was from fourth dimension immemorial. We must await great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and peradventure fifty-fifty bringing about an astonishing change in our very notion of art.[five]
Creative production [edit]
In the Preface, Benjamin presents Marxist analyses of the organisation of a capitalist society and establishes the identify of the arts in the public sphere and in the private sphere. He so explains the socio-economic conditions to extrapolate developments that farther the economic exploitation of the proletariat, whence ascend the social atmospheric condition that would cancel capitalism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of art is not an exclusively modernistic human activeness, citing examples such every bit artists manually copying the work of a master artist. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the ways for the mechanical reproduction of art, and their effects upon club'due south valuation of a work of art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the stamp mill in Ancient Greece; and the modern arts of woodcut relief-printing, engraving, etching, lithography, and photography, all of which are techniques of mass production that permit greater accuracy in reproducing a work of fine art.[six]
Authenticity [edit]
The aura of a work of fine art derives from authenticity (uniqueness) and locale (concrete and cultural); Benjamin explains that "even the virtually perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in 1 element: Its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where information technology happens to be" located. He writes that the "sphere of [artistic] actuality is exterior the technical [sphere]" of mechanised reproduction.[7] Therefore, the original work of fine art is an objet d'fine art independent of the mechanically accurate reproduction; however, by irresolute the cultural context of where the artwork is located, the existence of the mechanical re-create diminishes the artful value of the original piece of work of art. In that style, the aureola — the unique aesthetic authority of a piece of work of art — is absent from the mechanically produced copy.[8]
Value: cult and exhibition [edit]
Regarding the social functions of an artefact, Benjamin said that "Works of art are received and valued on different planes. Two polar types stand out; with ane, the accent is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work. Creative production begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve in a cult. One may assume that what mattered was their existence, not their existence on view."[nine] The cult value of religious art is that "certain statues of gods are accessible merely 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 footing level."[x] In practice, the diminished cult value of a religious artefact (an icon no longer venerated) increases the artefact'southward exhibition value as art created for the spectators' appreciation, because "it is easier to exhibit a portrait bosom, that can be sent here and at that place [to museums], than to showroom the statue of a divinity that has its fixed place in the interior of a temple."[11]
The mechanical reproduction of a work of fine art voids its cult value, because removal from a stock-still, 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 image, exhibition value, for the first time, shows its superiority to cult value."[13] In emphasising exhibition value, "the piece of work of art becomes a cosmos with entirely new functions," which "later may be recognized as incidental" to the original purpose for which the artist created the Objet d'art.[fourteen]
As a medium of creative production, the movie theatre (moving pictures) does not create cult value for the motion picture, itself, because "the audition's identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera. Consequently, the audition 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, non only by putting the public in the position of the critic, just also by the fact that, at the movies, this [critical] position requires no attention."[15]
Art as politics [edit]
The social value of a work of art changes equally a lodge change their value systems; thus the changes in artistic styles and in the cultural tastes of the public follow "the manner in which man sense-perception is organized [and] the [artistic] medium in which information technology is accomplished, [which are] determined not only by Nature, just past historical circumstances, as well."[vii] Despite the socio-cultural effects of mass-produced, reproduction-art upon the aura of the original work of art, Benjamin said that "the uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being embedded in the fabric of tradition," which separates the original work of art from the reproduction.[7] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of art also emancipated "the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual,"[vii] 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 relish the aforementioned aesthetics in an art gallery.
Influence [edit]
In the late-twentieth-century television program Ways of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and developed the themes of "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explain the contemporary representations of social class and racial caste inherent to the politics and production of art. That in transforming a work of art into a commodity, the modern ways of artistic production and of artistic reproduction take destroyed the aesthetic, cultural, and political authority of art: "For the beginning fourth dimension e'er, images of art have become imperceptible, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, costless," because they are commercial products that lack the aureola of authenticity of the original objet d'art.[16]
See also [edit]
- Aestheticization of politics
- Fine art for art'south sake
References [edit]
- ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects (2011) Routledge, London, p. 0000.
- ^ Scannell, Paddy. (2003) "Benjamin Contextualized: On 'The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction,'" in Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are At that place Whatsoever? Should There Exist? How About These?, Katz et al. (Eds.) Polity Press, Cambridge. ISBN 9780745629346. pp. 74–89.
- ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects, Routledge, London, 2011.
- ^ Notes on Walter Benjamin, "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction", a commentary by Gareth Griffiths, Aalto University, 2011. [ permanent dead link ]
- ^ Paul Valéry, La Conquête de l'ubiquité (1928)
- ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 01.
- ^ a b c d Walter Benjamin (1968). Hannah Arendt (ed.). "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Illuminations . London: Fontana. pp. 214–18. ISBN9781407085500.
- ^ Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2008). "Benjamin's Aura," Critical Enquiry No. 34 (Winter 2008)
- ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
- ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
- ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
- ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Department Ii". Samizdat Online. 2016-07-20. Retrieved 2020-05-22 .
- ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
- ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. iv.
- ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 5–half dozen.
- ^ 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. twoscore–68 (23MB)
- Complete text in High german (in High german)
- Partial text of the essay, with commentary by Detlev Schöttker (in High german)
- A comment to the essay on "diségno"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction
0 Response to "The Work of Art in Its Age of Technical Reproducibility"
Post a Comment