Week 4 - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

  The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin is about art in the era of industrialism and capitalism.  Benjamin talks about the reproduction of art at the start of the 19th century and how the process has diminished the aura or value of an art piece. 

The Great Wave - Katsushika Hokusai
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/39799

    Art has historically been reproduced whether it be replicas by pupils of a master, or masters diffusing their work, or third parties in pursuit of material gain. There were different forms of reproductions from woodcut graphic art, engravings, etchings to lithography. Nonetheless, the reproduction of a beautiful piece has always been a part of history.

     In the age of capitalism and the industrial revolution replicating art took on a new meaning. With a snap of a camera or a printing press, replicating became easier and changed the artistic process. One of the main points that Benjamin argues is that reproducing an image changed the presence in time and space. Each painting was unique in the place where it happen to be created giving the piece an “aura”. A sense of being and conveying emotion to the viewer. One student mentioned that she had seen images of the Van Gogh Starry Night painting many times throughout her childhood, but had an opportunity to see it in person as an adult. The feeling that painting gave her seeing it in person for the first time was not comparable to the replicas that she had seen throughout her childhood. The original Starry Night painting gave off an aura that Benjamin so much talked about in this essay. 

    One image that I have seen over and over again is The Great Wave by a Japanese artist named Hokusai. Hokusai’s design was meant to be mass-produced. The Japanese during the nineteenth century wanted to make beautiful art affordable and attainable to the masses. The technology of woodcut engravings afforded the Japanese to do so. The image of the Great Wave print is literally everywhere, from baseball hats to t-shirts, to even an emoji on the iPhone keyboard. The question remains however since it was meant to be mass-produced, does the first Great Wave print have that aura that Benjamin argues that every original has?  
I agree with Benjamin's argument, that the mechanical reproduction of an art piece can devalue it. Kind of like hearing a popular played-out song on the radio (you get tired of hearing it). However, the invention of photography, the printing press, and now digital formats of png and jpeg files has made the process of creating art and sharing much easier.  

Benjamin talks about the benefits of technical reproduction. For example, photography lends itself to bringing out aspects of the original that are unattainable to the naked eye. Photography aids certain processes, such as enlargement or slow motion. The lens can capture images that escape natural vision. Another benefit of mechanical reproduction is that it has released the process of creating works of art from the dependence on ritual ceremonies. I have personally used photography in my process of creating art. For instance, if I am on a hike and I come across an interesting mountain flower, I can easily take my phone out and snap a picture. I can reuse that image for inspiration or a component in a potential painting. In fact, I know many artists that use cameras as one of their primary source for references and inspiration while traveling. By contrast, an artist one hundred years ago would have had to do a quick sketch of a landscape or a flower and take it back to his studio to finish the painting. The invention of photography is a wonderful and useful tool to artists today and has streamlined the process of creating works of art. 

Another phenomenon of the nineteenth century is the invention of film. Relating stories to a screen by the use of screenplay, performances of skilled actors, lighting, and various angles of a camera. Benjamin states that an actor gives his or her soul to a performance. Doing so in a studio takes away the authenticity or aura. In comparison, since aura is tied to presence, if that same actor performs in front of a live audience the spectators can feel and experience his aura. I agree with Benjamin in the sense that comparing live performances to a performance that one sees on a screen is certainly not the same. Nonetheless, there have been movies that make me laugh or cry even scared and attribute those emotions to the skilled actor's performance.  I think that television gives off a different type of aura, not an immediate feeling but one that translates into emotion after processing the storyline and the actor’s portrayal of the emotion.  

Source:
Benjamin, W. (1969). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical                                 Reproduction. Illuminations.

Metmuseum.org. Accessed September 19, 2021. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/39799.