In Benjamin's “The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility” I (think I may have) found some contradictions that made the reading a little difficult to follow. I first got the impression that he was a Marxist, so to speak, but once he got into art, especially when he compares art with that which comes from the reproduction of art, I couldn't help thinking “why is he defending art?” Wouldn't art be part of the superstructure (like family, education, politics, etc.)? And, isn't the superstructure what maintains and legitimates the base (all the things needed to produce, which are owned by the bourgeoisie, where proletariat are exploited)? When it came down to discussing what was wrong with reproducing art, he recognizes that it decreases the value of art, therefore, it discredits art. He seems to want the type of art that is able to maintain its eternal value. Benjamin states that art has to appear authentic and reflect its here and now—its unique existence—where history plays an important role. The first ten sections (especially) seem to be dedicated to defend claiming that “authenticity eludes technological reproduction”. According to him these works do not reflect its here and now, and that authenticity “is jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object, [because] the weight it derived from tradition” (22). Here I encountered another interesting word: tradition. He states that “the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object for the sphere of tradition” (22). What is “tradition” or what does it implicate in Benjamin's discourse? He continues by saying that “by replicating the work of art many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. An permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced”(22). Doesn't this reproduction demystifies art? “It extracts sameness even from what is unique”(24). Isn't it a good thing? But, what is interesting is that later, after arguing that technology today turns art into products (because it increases the opportunities to be exhibited, it is capable of improvement, etc), Benjamin points out that film (created through modern technology) has a social function as it “establishes equilibrium between human beings and the apparatus” (37). In this same section, Benjamin claims that “it is through the camera that we first discover the optical unconscious”(37). Here he keeps saying that film is good and even talks about the importance of actors. There seems to be some sort of condescending attitude towards “the masses,” and at the same time, it seems as if he blamed “the masses” for the place of art in modernity. Perhaps reading other essays written by him would make it easier to figure out his position.
Yes, Benjamin was a Marxist, if a rather unorthodox one.
ReplyDeleteBut:
1) He is not simply defending art. He is defending one particular way of treating art (the socialist, vs. the fascist use of art).
2) He is *not* defending the aura; quite to the contrary.
3) His main argument is against "art for art's sake" in all its forms; but that doesn't mean that art cannot be part of building a socialist society.
I'm not sure but I think he is saying that as the work of art can be reproduced technically, becomes a copy and is no longer attached to its "authentic" value, to its "aura", so instead of being a "private property" of a few, it can arrive to a lot of more people: so the change is quite huge: the work of art is now for the vast majority, not for a reduced and manipulative elite... (which reminds me to the position of other writers that also fought fascism, as Celaya, Blas de Otero... and so on)
ReplyDelete@ Jon (actually, this may apply to both): He is defending one particular way of treating art (the socialist, vs. the fascist use of art).
ReplyDeleteI guess I had a hard time understanding, how is reproducing art pro-fascism (so to speak)? Because it grans expression and no rights (41)? Like Jon would say “I don't see it” =p
He seems to applaud that the “[c]ommunism replies [(to the aestheticizing of politics as practiced by fascism)] by politicizing the arts”(42). What's wrong with (politicized) artistic performance?
@Jon: 3) His main argument is against "art for art's sake" in all its forms; but that doesn't mean that art cannot be part of building a socialist society.
True, he criticizes the doctrine (or the approach to the crisis suffered in the arts by the emergence of photography) of "art for art's sake," but my questions are the following:
1) He argues that "art for art's sake" had no “social” purpose, and that's what he seemed to dislike about them, so, as long as an artist is creating an art/ifact with some sort of social purpose, would s/he be in good shape? But, on the other hand, he also says that “it (technology) extracts sameness even from what is unique”(24), and he sees this as a threat to the arts (this is where I start getting lost) However, he makes another interesting move. He also claims that “technological reproducibility emancipates the work of art from its parasitic subservience to ritual (24)”
There seems to be something strange about the consistency of his idea/s (to me).