Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility” delves into how modern innovation since the industrial revolution, and thereby the beginnings of capitalism as we know it, has changed the status of art. Benjamin invokes Marxist concepts as the ability to mass-distribute art amongst the people and dissolve the ‘aura’ that surrounds a work appears progressive upon first inspection. When we change how we consume art, and therefore how we view art, it leads to the creation of new artforms, like film. Yet, as methods to reproduce art have become increasingly sophisticated, new mediums emerge and consumers of ‘art’ continue to grow, they have also been largely co-opted by capitalism. Benjamin discusses film in particular and how it comparatively differs from painting in its reproducibility, production and utilization.

Reproducing art is not just limited to nineteenth century innovations with photography. It has a long history that spans back to days of wood etching to lithography. But, the relatively newfound ability post-industrial revolution to reproduce works photorealistically has stripped away what Benjamin refers to as the ‘aura.’ Art has always been shrouded in some sort of distant, mythical ‘aura’ and was often tied to religious or ritualistic meaning. In reproduction, this is stripped away. “The stripping of the veil from the object, the destruction of the aura, is the signature of a perception whose ‘sense for sameness in the world’ has so increased that, by means of production, it extracts sameness even from what is unique.” (1055-1056) From this, a newfound focus on authenticity emerges, a concept that is wholly dependent on the creation of copies to compare to the original and therefore more ‘authentic’ work. This is only further complicated by the ability that I could walk up to a painting, take a picture of it with my phone and be able to zoom in on all the texture, the gradient of colors, the figures and see the painting for what it is. It is an accurate representation, but its ‘authenticity’ is debatable.

When Benjamin raises questions about the most innovative art-form of the 20th century, its reproducibility helps and hinders conceptions of art. (I’ve yet to make up my mind on the matter.) Film is an artistic medium that is intended on being easily mass produced, being widely distributed and having as many eyeballs on it as much as possible. Film has effectively killed the ‘aura’. It’s not an abstract painting hanging up on a well lit museum wall, where this one frame can be stared at for hours to extract meaning and becomes revered and more distant in the process. Film consists of a succession of many, many frames that constantly move and are leaving in a blink of an eye. We are subject to the constant movement and it does not wait for us, which can either lend itself to a joyful acquiescence in front of a mindless 90 minute rom-com or we go back and deconstruct it and try to contextualize all of the frames. The ability for a filmmaker to produce a work with a specific perspective and vision that can critique society seems revolutionary (and within specific means Benjamin claims that it actually can be. Yet, the film industry and the (re)production of films has become a capitalistic process like any other. Benjamin invokes unique allusions to Marx when discussing the fragmentary nature of film (re)production and paints a picture of Hollywood as a factory. Film is unique in that its production is split up into small parts that are essentially glued together at the end, much like any mass-produced product that is assembled with new hands for every new bolt and nut. The alienation of factory workers draws a fascinating parallel to the alienation of screen actors. Stage acting is live, performed to an audience of people and runs through an entire work when performed, much like a cobbler guild master who makes the shoe from start to finish. Screen acting is broken up into scenes and parts, often performed out of sequence and into an object, the glaring lens of a camera. Acting is a complicated process and involves both difficult physical and emotional labor, and there is a peculiar emptiness to expending vast amounts of emotion into a camera and essentially delaying the performance. Thousands of films are mass produced this way year after year. The formulas/genres of films that are successful and fill the most seats are repeated over and over, and what could be ‘revolutionary’ is often kicked to the curb.

Film is a naturally mass-produced art form that could lend itself to progressive social analysis or critique. That doesn’t mean it never happens anymore, there are films made in 2017 like the recent Get Out that do this successfully. But, even those films who are tied to thoughtful social commentary are subject to the demands of capitalism, i.e selling more tickets, getting good reviews, then winning more awards, and selling even more tickets/DVDS/streams once those awards have been won. America’s most loved mass-produced art form is a complicated hing to reconcile with.

In the text “The Work of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin talks about a change in the idea and the affects of the film and photography in the twentieth century. He also talks about the sense of changes in humanity’s way of existence. For example, the way we look and see the visual work of art is different. While reading, I wonder how does human perception relate to history? Is it a worldwide idea that is being discussed heavily. Can there be a worldwide idea the first place? Benjamin tries to show something specific about the modern age of the effects of modern work of art.  Mainly, Film and photography. Benjamin also talks about the loss of the aura through the mechanical reproduction of art. The aura for Benjamin is the originality and authenticity of a work of art that really hasn’t been reproduced.  If we think about it, a painting has an aura while a photograph doesn’t. The photograph is an image of an image while the painting remains  only original.The sense of the aura is lost on film and the reproducible image just shows a historical change that we have to take account of even if when we don’t really notice it. What does it mean when the aura is lost? How does it function and how does it come about? Benjamin writes of the loss of the aura as a loss of an authority within the work of art. But what comes through in this new space left by the death to the aura? How does the mechanically reproduced work of art manage to make up for this void?As Benjamin goes on, a tension between new modes of perception and the aura come up alot. As soon as you remove authority within the original work of art infers a loss of authority. The cameraman, for example, comes on with what we see in a way which a painting can never do. It directs the eye towards a specific place and a specific story; at the same time it happens to be very revolutionary and  it is also totalitarian. It guides us to a particular side of a story and leaves other parts out. It bores our perception towards the work of art and shows us distraction as a mode of reception. The location of anything we might call the aura has to be moved into a unique space, which I find deep and interesting.

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin, explains how art reproduced by machines are different to the original art. We can have technological advancement to reproduce art for the masses to view, but the experience of looking at the art would be different. There is a special “presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be”(1053) of the original art. There is history behind the original work and there is a unique aura because it existed for a certain amount of time without being destroyed. Benjamin also writes, “The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition”(1054) meaning all reproduced work will never be authentic, but the acceptance of mechanical reproduction will diminish the aura of the original artwork.

The authenticity of the original is backed by ritual and how it was used historically. Art at first may start out as rituals, but it slowly merges with our lives which turns art into art used for exhibition. With art losing its authenticity, due to  reproduction , it will become more political. Art will lose its original meaning and therefore transform into something else. As Benjamin writes, “But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function is reversed. Instead of being based of ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics.”(1057). An example of this can be a hat. In the beginning a hat is used for blocking out the sun, but as the hat became massively produced, the hat evolved to have other uses such wearing it as aesthetics. Recently, Trump’s red hat transformed a hat into something political. When we look at a red hat now, there is some sort of connection with Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.”

What I found interesting in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction was the epilogue. It talks about two different ideologies: Fascism and Communism. In the first part of the epilogue, it talks about how Fascism “attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate”(1071). It talks about how Fascism doesn’t give the proletarians their rights, but allow them to express themselves. The epilogue eventually leads to how Fascism’s aesthetics in political life will ultimately lead to war. This is interesting because war help set a common goal for the country and allows them to develop new technological advancements. Marinetti says, “War is beautiful because it initiates dreamt of metalization of the human body…War  is beautiful because it creates new architecture…”(1071).

Fascism allows people to express their opinions, but their rights won’t be granted. As the article states, “The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, whom Fascism, with its Führer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values.”(1071).  Wouldn’t that create alienation in the country? The workers will be forced to produce new products for the country which they may not have sympathy for. At one point the workers will tire out from producing products and lead to a breakdown. For Communism, they politicize art to control the masses. They use propaganda to motivate the masses towards a certain goal. This would be a better method for not alienating workers in long term aspect. People will get tired of war, while using art to motivate people can be change subtly to enforce the country’s political agenda.