The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Adorno

1935 essay by Walter Benjamin

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 capitalist guild.

"The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), past Walter Benjamin, is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of an objet d'art.^[one] 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 Germany, Benjamin'southward essay presents a theory of art that is "useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a mass-civilisation guild.^[2]

The subject and themes of Benjamin'southward essay: the aureola of a work of fine art; the artistic actuality of the artefact; its cultural authorisation; and the aestheticization of politics for the production of art, became resources for research in the fields of art history and architectural theory, cultural studies and media theory.^[iii]

The original essay, "The Work of Fine art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility," was published in 3 editions: (i) the German edition, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in 1935; (2) the French edition, L'œuvre d'art à l'époque de sa reproduction mécanisée, in 1936; and (3) the German language revised edition in 1939, from which derive the contemporary English language translations of the essay titled "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction."^[4]

Summary [edit]

In "The Work of 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 by eras are different from gimmicky works of art; that the agreement and treatment of art and of artistic technique must progressively develop in order to understand a work of art in the context of the modernistic time.

Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very unlike from the present, by men whose power of activity upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. But the amazing growth of our techniques, the adjustability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make information technology a certainty that profound changes are impending in the aboriginal craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as information technology used to exist, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. Nosotros must await great innovations to transform the unabridged technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and mayhap fifty-fifty bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.^[5]

Artistic 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 arise the social conditions that would cancel capitalism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of fine art is not an exclusively modernistic human action, citing examples such as artists manually copying the work of a master artist. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the ways for the mechanical reproduction of fine art, and their effects upon society's valuation of a work of fine 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, carving, lithography, and photography, all of which are techniques of mass product that permit greater accurateness in reproducing a work of fine 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 1 element: Its presence in fourth dimension and space, its unique being at the place where it happens to be" located. He writes that the "sphere of [artistic] actuality is outside the technical [sphere]" of mechanised reproduction.^[7] Therefore, the original work of art is an objet d'art independent of the mechanically authentic reproduction; nevertheless, by irresolute the cultural context of where the artwork is located, the existence of the mechanical copy diminishes the artful value of the original work of art. In that way, the aura — the unique artful authority of a 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 fine art are received and valued on unlike planes. 2 polar types stand out; with one, the emphasis is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the piece of work. Artistic production begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve in a cult. One may assume that what mattered was their beingness, not their being on view."^[9] The cult value of religious art is that "sure statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella; certain madonnas remain covered nearly all year round; certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on footing level."^[x] In practice, the macerated cult value of a religious artefact (an icon no longer venerated) increases the artefact's exhibition value as art created for the spectators' appreciation, because "it is easier to exhibit a portrait bosom, that can be sent hither and at that place [to museums], than to exhibit the statue of a divinity that has its stock-still place in the interior of a temple."^[eleven]

The mechanical reproduction of a work of art voids its cult value, because removal from a fixed, individual infinite (a temple) and placement in mobile, public space (a museum) allows exhibiting the art to many spectators.^[12] Farther explaining the transition from cult value to exhibition value, Benjamin said that in "the photographic image, exhibition value, for the beginning time, shows its superiority to cult value."^[13] In emphasising exhibition value, "the 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'fine art.^[14]

As a medium of artistic product, the cinema (moving pictures) does not create cult value for the motion flick, itself, because "the audition's identification with the actor is really an identification with the photographic camera. Consequently, the audience takes the position of the camera; its approach is that of testing. This is non the approach to which cult values may exist exposed." Therefore, "the picture makes the cult value recede into the background, not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but besides 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 as a order modify their value systems; thus the changes in artistic styles and in the cultural tastes of the public follow "the manner in which human being sense-perception is organized [and] the [creative] medium in which information technology is accomplished, [which are] determined non merely by Nature, but by historical circumstances, equally well."^[7] 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 material of tradition," which separates the original work of art from the reproduction.^[7] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of art as well emancipated "the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual,"^[7] thereby increasing the social value of exhibiting works of fine art, which practise 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 same aesthetics in an art gallery.

Influence [edit]

In the late-twentieth-century television program Ways of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and adult the themes of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explicate the gimmicky representations of social grade and racial caste inherent to the politics and production of art. That in transforming a piece of work of art into a commodity, the modern ways of artistic production and of artistic reproduction have destroyed the aesthetic, cultural, and political authorisation of art: "For the first time ever, images of art accept become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, complimentary," because they are commercial products that lack the aura of authenticity of the original objet d'art.^[xvi]

See likewise [edit]

• Aestheticization of politics
• Art for fine art'southward 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 Research: Are There Whatsoever? Should There Be? How About These?, Katz et al. (Eds.) Polity Press, Cambridge. ISBN 9780745629346. pp. 74–89.
3. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects, Routledge, London, 2011.
4. ^ Notes on Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction", a commentary past Gareth Griffiths, Aalto University, 2011. ^{[ permanent dead link ]}
5. ^ Paul Valéry, La Conquête de l'ubiquité (1928)
6. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 01.
7. ^ ^{a b c d} Walter Benjamin (1968). Hannah Arendt (ed.). "The Piece of work of Fine art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction," Illuminations . London: Fontana. pp. 214–18. ISBN9781407085500.
8. ^ Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2008). "Benjamin's Aureola," Critical Inquiry No. 34 (Winter 2008)
9. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
10. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
11. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
12. ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Department II". Samizdat Online. 2016-07-20. Retrieved 2020-05-22 .
13. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. iv.
14. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
15. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 5–6.
16. ^ Berger, John. Means 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, "L'œuvre d'art à l'époque de sa reproduction méchanisée," in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung Jahrgang V, Félix Alcan, Paris, 1936, pp. 40–68 (23MB)
• Complete text in German (in German)
• Fractional text of the essay, with commentary by Detlev Schöttker (in German)
• A comment to the essay on "diségno"

lindseyfroved.blogspot.com

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

Bagikan Artikel ini