Try to drag your brain through this:
Selected excerpts from 'The Work of Art in the Age ofMechanical Reproduction' by Walter Benjamin
Selected excerpts from 'The Work of Art in the Age ofMechanical Reproduction' by Walter Benjamin
In the case of the art object, a most sensitive nucleus - namely, its authenticity - is interfered with whereas no natural object is vulnerable on that score. The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced. Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration ceases to matter. And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object.
One might subsume the eliminated element in the term 'aura' and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm ofart. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches th.e reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own partIcular sItuatIon, It reactivates the object reproduced. These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering oftradition which is the obverse ofthe contemporary crisis and renewal of mankind. Both processes are intimately connected with the contemporary mass movements. Their most powerful agent is the film. Its socIal SIgnIficance, particularly in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic aspect, that is, the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage.
Originally the contextual integration of art in tradition found its expression in the cult. We know that the earliest art works originated in the service of a ritual - first the magical, then the religious kind. It is significant that the existence of the work of art with reference to its aura is never entirely separated from its ritual function. In other words, the unique value of the 'authentic' work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic basis, however remote, is still recognizable as secularized ritual even in the most profane forms of the cult of beauty. The secular cult of beauty, developed during the Renaissance and prevailing for three centuries, clearly showed that ritualistic basis in its decline and the first deep crisis which befell it. With the advent of the first truly revolutionary means of reproduction, photography, simultaneously with the rise of socialism, art sensed the approaching crisis which has become evident a century later. At the time, art reacted with the doctrine ofl'art pour l'art, that is, with a theology ofart. This gave rise to what might be called a negative theology in the form of the idea of 'pure' art, which not only denied any social function of art but also any categorizing by subject matter. (In poetry, Mallarme was the first to take this position.)
... An analysis of art in the age of mechanical reproduction must do justice to these
relationships, for they lead us to an all-important insight: for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. To an ever greater degree the work ofart reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the 'authentic' print makes no sense. But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics.
I like Walter Benjamin, but I think he writes his sentences in the most backwards and roundabout ways possible. I have attempted to rephrase the above into simple english I can understand:
Unlike natural objects, the authenticity of art objects is sensitive, and vulnerable to human interference. The ’authenticity’ of an object refers to its entire lifespan, and how it pays testimony to its own history. The ability to reproduce art objects means that the duration of its history no longer matters. Its authenticity is jeopardised, which affects the object’s authority.
Mechanical reproduction diminishes the ‘aura’ of a work of art. This is a symptom of processes outside of art. The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from its traditional field. By making many reproductions, a unique existence is substituted by copies. When a copy is encountered, the reproduced object is reactivated. These two processes (ie. making reproductions, and encountering them?) are intrinsically connected with contemporary mass movements. They cause tradition to shatter, coinciding with the ‘contemporary crisis’ and renewal of mankind. The most powerful example of these processes is film. Film has positive social significance, but it is also destructive, as it liquidates the traditional value of cultural heritage.
Artworks originated from a ritual context - first magical, then religious. An artwork and its aura are based on, and never entirely separated from, its original ritual function. Although this basis is remotely evident in the cult of beauty, it declined during the Renaissance. Photography was the first truly revolutionary means of reproduction, which occurred simultaneously with the rise of socialism. Art sensed the approaching crisis, and reacted with French art theology. This idea of ‘pure’ art could be considered negative, as it denied any social function of art.
In the age of mechanical reproduction, analysing art must do justice to these relationships. They show that, for the first time in history, mechanical reproduction emancipates artworks from their dependence on ritual. Works of art become increasingly designed to be reproduced. For example, one can make any number of prints from a photographic negative, and there is no one ‘authentic’ print. But when ‘authenticity’ no longer applies to artistic production, the function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it becomes political.
I want to reference his ideas about the effect of mechanical reproduction in my essay, but I'm already well over my word count... I also want to connect his comments about the 'aura' to Nate Larson's works which capture the electric field - or 'aura' - around an object (specifically fruit and vegetables in his 'Ingestion' series)
