There is a clear distinction between looking and seeing. We may see, but what we look at is influenced by society.
Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) was a literary and cultural critic who was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. In 1935, Benjamin wrote a seminal essay in regards to 20th Century art criticism: ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’. When this essay was re-discovered in the 1960’s it influenced our understanding of the way individuals look and see; it had wider implications in 20th Century visual culture.
Like much of the theory to be associated with the Frankfurt School, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ is informed by Marxism. As the essay suggests the democratisation of the arts, it ultimately puts forward a case for the special nature of photography and rather than confronting orthodoxy, it questions it from within.
Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) was a literary and cultural critic who was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. In 1935, Benjamin wrote a seminal essay in regards to 20th Century art criticism: ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’. When this essay was re-discovered in the 1960’s it influenced our understanding of the way individuals look and see; it had wider implications in 20th Century visual culture.
Like much of the theory to be associated with the Frankfurt School, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ is informed by Marxism. As the essay suggests the democratisation of the arts, it ultimately puts forward a case for the special nature of photography and rather than confronting orthodoxy, it questions it from within.
Benjamin belonged to the Frankfurt School of Marxist aesthetics. He made an analogy to psychoanalysis within his discussion of photography; he believed it was the technology of the ‘optical unconscious’. This was because photography, similar in a way to psychoanalysis, showed us aspects of our world that eluded standard vision. Thus the camera is able to extend human observation beyond its normal parameters.
In relation to the Cinema, Benjamin had differing views to those of Georges Duhamel. Within ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ he discusses the new mediums progressive epistemological impact. The new mass-media forms of photography and film, allowed for new artistic paradigms; reflective of new historical forces. This meant that the new forms shouldn’t be judged by pre-existing standards. Ultimately, the Cinema has expanded the field of human perception and deepened humanity’s critical consciousness of reality.
In relation to the Cinema, Benjamin had differing views to those of Georges Duhamel. Within ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ he discusses the new mediums progressive epistemological impact. The new mass-media forms of photography and film, allowed for new artistic paradigms; reflective of new historical forces. This meant that the new forms shouldn’t be judged by pre-existing standards. Ultimately, the Cinema has expanded the field of human perception and deepened humanity’s critical consciousness of reality.
In ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ Benjamin states his case for the removal of art’s elite nature through mechanical reproduction; especially through photography. The process of pictorial reproduction was freed from the artist and thus it accelerated as the lens could capture instantaneously. As technical reproduction reached a certain standard, it captured its own place within the artistic process. While authenticity, perquisite to the presence of the original, is outside technical reproducibly the reproduction process itself makes the reproduction independent from the original. This allows a copy of the original to be put in situations outside its original context. Though, this means that the quality of the original is depreciated as authenticity is sensitive. The ‘aura’ is natural to an artwork; defined as unique phenomenon of spatial distance. Mechanical reproduction of an artwork eliminates the element of the ‘aura’ from the reproductions. I agree with the idea of the ‘aura’ in an original art object, it is the concept that makes it desirable. The ‘aura’ it lacks transmissibility; the ultimate authority of the original is jeopardised and art’s elite nature is removed.
Understandably, humanity changing mode of existence has allowed perception to be shaped by historical circumstance. Mechanical reproduction is used by the masses in contemporary life; this desire to bring things closer has decayed the ‘aura’. Society is ardent to overcome the uniqueness of reality by accepting its reproduction. The technique of reproduction detaches the object from the domain of tradition (the ultimate authority), which substitutes a plurality instead of a unique existence. It democratises art’s position as the reproduction permits the artwork to meet the individual in their own particular situation. Tradition, evident in the ‘aura’, is shattered.
I tend to agree with this statement by Benjamin: “To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose ‘sense of quality of things’ has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction”. Would that implicate that the masses shun aesthetic quality over to quantity and spectacle? Would this further mean that they are ripe from manipulation via cultural hegemony?
Additionally, I would say that the improvements in reproduction methods and possibilities, through technological advancement (i.e. colour printing, digital imagining and television), strengthen Benjamin’s argument or, more precisely, make his ideas more relevant today. It is fitting to our modern western lifestyle that mechanical reproduction emancipated art from its dependence on ritual. Ultimately, the function of art has been inverted as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic function. The traditional ritual of art has become politicised.
I tend to agree with this statement by Benjamin: “To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose ‘sense of quality of things’ has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction”. Would that implicate that the masses shun aesthetic quality over to quantity and spectacle? Would this further mean that they are ripe from manipulation via cultural hegemony?
Additionally, I would say that the improvements in reproduction methods and possibilities, through technological advancement (i.e. colour printing, digital imagining and television), strengthen Benjamin’s argument or, more precisely, make his ideas more relevant today. It is fitting to our modern western lifestyle that mechanical reproduction emancipated art from its dependence on ritual. Ultimately, the function of art has been inverted as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic function. The traditional ritual of art has become politicised.
No, the failure of the Soviet experiment does not alter the validity of Benjamin’s case. Marxism has not become obsolete with the collapse of the Soviet Union; capitalisms ever increasing power is still present. I believe his ideas are applicable to today, though like human perception, the nature of capitalism has changed because of historical circumstance.
John Berger (b. 1926) is concerned with the way in which we confront images in ways and places that are very from their original contextual surroundings and explores how this then affects their meaning. Berger was influenced by the Frankfurt School of Marxist aesthetics. His argument, expressed in both the first chapter and first episode of Ways of Seeing, is directly influenced by Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ and develops on certain aspects of the original essay. Berger’s case is convincing as historical circumstances and the development in Marxist theory, marks Berger’s argument from Benjamin’s.
Berger discusses the reciprocal nature of vision and that all images are man-made. In relation to that every image embodies a way of seeing (put there by the image-maker) and our perception of the image depends upon our way of seeing; which is influenced (or maybe conditioned?) society. In an obvious Marxist analysis, Berger believes society perspective of art began to change during the Renaissance; because of an increasing awareness in both history and the consciousness of the individual.
Society has taught us artistic conventions, concerning aesthetics, which are no longer in accord with the modern world. Cultural mystification of artworks, making them remote, has been openly encouraged by a privileged minority (the ruling classes, or whatever their equivalent in a state of modern capitalism) to justify their control. Therefore mystification is openly regarded as part of cultural hegemony.
Mystification itself changes the original meaning of an artwork as it explains away what otherwise may be apparent. Though, it is human nature to perceive the art of the past in a different way than it was actually conceived; exemplified in the concept of perspective. Conventionally, perspective was treated as ‘reality’, an ideal, though it did not allow for visual reciprocity. The invention and the implications of the camera’s function in human existence exposed the contradictions inherent in artistic perspective.
An image is used for many different purposes; obviously, manipulated to fit many purposes as well. The image’s commoditised status allows it to be become part of an argument that has little to do with its original meaning. The authority of the original is now distributed over the context in which it appears.
Perspective meant that the uniqueness of a painting relied in what it presented. I think a work of art removed from its original site does not either grow or diminishes in meaning; it subverts it. It is no longer what the original shows that is unique. Instead of a camera reproducing a painting and destroying its uniqueness; its meaning is altered and multiplied into new fragments. Mechanical reproduction has allowed for new meanings to be attached to them, like all transmissible information.
In Benjamin’s sense the ‘aura’ has been removed by the postcard, though if you consider Berger, the uniqueness of an original now lies in it being the original of a reproduction. Economically its market value relies on rarity. The status of the original is altered by the reproduction, causing mystification to build up around it. The bogus religiosity of art, in relation to what is deemed authentic and aesthetically beautiful, allows capitalism to bestow a new impressiveness on high art and culture; determined by the market value of the art object.
Nostalgia becomes functional in art because of the camera. If an art object is no longer unique or exclusive it is artificially made mysterious. Rather than familiarity breeding contempt; familiarity breeds apathy. The reproduction is used to suppress; it is used politically and commercially to deny individual existence and reinforce interpellation.
 |
| Ways of Seeing screenshot. |
- Ways of seeing part one can be seen on YouTube:
Episode One: Part 1
Episode One: Part 2
Episode One: Part 3
Episode One: Part 4
Bibliography
Benjamin, Walter. 1936. ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’. From: Illuminations. ed. Hannah Ardent. New York: Schocken Books. 1968., pp. 217-242.
Berger, John. 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Publishing. pp. 1-27.
D’Alleva, Anne. 2005. Methods & Theories of Art History. London: Laurence King Publishing.
Edwards, Steve. 2006. Photography: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stam, Robert. 1999. Film Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell., Chapter: ‘The Frankfurt School’, pp. 64-71.
No comments:
Post a Comment