Week 23: 9 March Cultural Flows I: Analog/Mechanical

Walter Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility’, The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility and Other Writings on Media pp. 19-55 Hartley, ‘Digital/analogue distribution’

Just as the entire mode of existence of human collectives changes over long historical periods, so too does their mode of perception. The way in which human perception is organized—the medium in which it occurs—is conditioned not only by nature but by history. In principle, the work of art has always been reproducible. Objects made by humans could always be copied by humans. Replicas were made by pupils in practicing for their craft, by masters in disseminating their works, and, finally, by third parties in pursuit of profit. But the technological reproduction of artworks is something new.

…that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.

Benjamin was optimistic about how the new media technologies of the early 20th century (particularly film) He introduced a number of new concepts—technological reproducibility and aura—into the theory of art (aesthetics) He did so in hopes of countering Fascism which “aestheticizes political life”

• he favoured “the politicization of art” Benjamin hoped these concepts would facilitate revolutionary demands in the politicization of art

• but useless for the purposes of fascism

Specifically, as tools for understand the tendencies of the dvlpmt of art under the then-present conditions of production

• in order to contribute to political struggle N.B. You have read a brand new translation of Benjamin’s essay The better-known previously translated version was entitled “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”

• there were four versions of the essay • written in early 1936, a decade before Adorno and Horkheimer

wrote about the ‘culture industry’

1) Contextualizing Benjamin

Benjamin is a member of the Frankfurt School Like Adorno and Horkheimer, he examined the effects of mechanical production on art and culture

Adorno and Horkheimer • focused on the negative effects of industrial production • locate meaning in the mode of production—‘culture industry’

Benjamin • much more optimistic about the potential of new media

technology • locates meaning in reception—aesthetics

Benjamin saw positive potential in ‘technological reproduction’

• potential shift from ‘auratic’ culture to ‘democratic’ culture Who was Walter Benjamin?

• German cultural critic, and a member of the Frankfurt School • as much influenced by Critical Theory as he was by Jewish

Mysticism (Kabbalah) • also enjoyed smoking hashish and then philosophizing • spent much of the 1930s moving around Europe after having fled

Nazi Germany • in 1940, after the Nazi’s occupied France, he fled Paris where

he had been living but was captured by Spanish border guards (Spain was also Fascist) and committed suicide

Benjamin’s writing has been extremely influential on cultural criticism, especially that which focuses on aesthetics

• tries to locate the effects of ‘technological reproduction’ on the aesthetic function of art

In the ancient world, the aesthetic role of art was secondary, subsumed by its ritualistic function Over time, that aesthetic function comes to support the dominant perspective of the socio-economic elite But Benjamin sees a potential breach in this dominant aesthetic form with the technological reproduction of art

2) Reproduction and authenticity Lithography enabled graphic art to provide an illustrated accompaniment to everyday life. It began to keep pace with movable-type printing. [P]hotography freed the hand from the most important artistic tasks in the process of pictorial reproduction—tasks that now devolved upon the eye alone. And since the eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw, the process of pictorial reproduction was enormously accelerated, so that it could ow keep pace with speech.

In the above quotes, Benjamin’s focus is on the effects of each form of media artifactuality

• on the ratio of sensory perception • on how we can understand and re-produce the world around us

Reproduction and Authenticity Reproduction fundamentally alters the essence of the object of art

• from object as singular • to object as multiple

Reproduction negates the following singular qualities

• “the here and now of the work of art” • its “unique existence’ • “the history to which it has been subject”

It is the singularity of the work of art which gives it its authenticity

Singularity = Authenticity The whole sphere of authenticity eludes technological—and of course not only technological—reproduction With manual reproduction the original retains authenticity

• i.e. forgery of a painting Technological reproduction brings its own qualities which largely eludes the authenticity of the original There are two main reasons for this:

i) technological reproduction is “more independent of the original” • e.g. photographic enlargement; slow motion in film

ii) it can alter the context of the original • e.g. a gramaphone can take a music performance into your

home In short, Benjamin stresses the fact that technological reproduction actually creates something new as opposed to simply copying the original The Sensory-Perceptual Dimensions of Authenticity/Technological Reproduction Both of these ‘new’ qualities of technological reproduction can be understood via media theory

• i.e. particular effects on the ratio of sensory perception One way it changes the ratio of sensory perception is by altering the temporal-spatial dimensions of the work of art

• i.e. music is no longer limited to the performance hall Yet Benjamin still stresses the value that comes from the original

• i.e. the actual performance over its technological reproduction In short, authenticity proceeds via temporal-spatial particularity Let’s break down the sources of authenticity by closely reading a passage from the article

The authenticity of a thing is the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it from its origins on, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relating to it.

Authenticity is function of transmissibility • N.B. aura could be substituted here

Transmissibility is comprised of physical duration Historical testimony is founded on physical duration But historical testimony is jeopardized by reproduction

• no role therein for physical duration Authority of object undermined when historical testimony is undermined by technological reproduction

3) Technological Reproduction (or, culture and the mode of production)

Benjamin predicates his argument on the relationship b/n the conditions of production of art and its developmental tendencies The ‘reproducibility’ (or lack thereof) of a work of art profoundly influenced its role in society and its potential effects Brief overview of the ‘reproducibility’ of art Remember that if art is not ‘reproducible’ then it remains unique—a singularity a) Founding and stamping

• practiced by the Ancient Greeks and many others • limited to bronze, terra cotta, and coins

b) Woodcuts • began in China in the 6th c. • by the 15th c. it was common in Europe • Albrecht Durer was perhaps the most famous woodcut artist

Durer’s Rhinoceros (1505)

• engraving and etching were variations of the woodcut

c) Lithography • a new stage of reproduction begins w/ the 19th c. • technique consisted of tracing the image on a stone, which

could then by reproduced in large numbers, and in daily changing forms

• this enabled the illustration of everyday life—new temporal dimension

• this enabled the emergence of ‘illustrated newspapers’ A key moment for Benjamin because

i) art is being diffused throughout society for the first time ii) the working class is seeing representations of everyday life

d) Photography

Boulevard du Temple, 1839 The development of photography was even more profound for Benjamin It altered the very possibility of representation

• eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw • representation can now move at the speed of speech

Benjamin was excited about the radical potential of such technological reproduction

4) Aura, authenticity, and ritual

From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the ‘authentic’ print makes no sense.

For Benjamin, photography was the basis of the technological revolution of art

• consider this in r/n to digital technology This brings us to a fundamental dividing line imposed by reproduction

i) the authentic ii) the copy

The authentic prescribes two qualities to art • ritualistic value—aura • market value—original

What is aura?

A strange tissue of space and time. He gives the example of the particular perspective of a mountain range in the distance

• which would have a spatial and temporal particularity Similarly, a work of art-as an original—also is a singularity

• exists in a singular time and space Historically, this singularity was its source of authority and key to its ritualistic function Benjamin contends that singularity gives the work of art its aura

The singularity of a work of art—its aura—has a powerful effect on those in its presence

It generates particular kinds of response

• “concentration, empathy, absorption, and identification” Benjamin argues that this lead to “political and esthetic passivity” This singularity and power of the work of art dates back to its initial use in ritual

• it functioned as a source of authority Aura and ritual

Venus figure form 20,000BCE

Early artistic production—like the Venus figure above or deer drawn on cave walls—were ceremonial objects with cult value There was no exhibition, save for ritualistic purpose—as an instrument of magic Most artistic production is either fixed in place

• frescoes, mosaics, and sculptures Or, it is only exhibited during a ritual Keep in mind all of that when we watch the following clip from Rome

VIDEO clip: Rome, Season 2, Episode 2, ‘Son of Hades’ Aura and Authenticity

…what withers in the age of technological reproduction of the work of art is the latter’s aura.

Benjamin identifies a “general formula” for technological reproduction

i) the reproduced object is detached from the “sphere of tradition” ii) the continued replication “substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence” iii) the mobility of the reproduction brings the ‘work of art’ to the recipient’s own situation iv) this “actualizes that which is reproduced”

This results in a ‘shattering of tradition’ which in turn leads to both

i) a crisis of humanity ii) a renewal of humanity

Such renewal is cathartic in that it liquidates “the value of tradition in the cultural heritage” N.B. This destruction of tradition is what gives technological reproduction its revolutionary potential Film was the “most powerful agent” of these changes

5) Art and the medium of reproduction

During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstance as well.

One of Benjamin’s key points is that there is a correlation b/n social transformations and changes of perception And perception is influenced by a given medium (i.e. mechanical reproduction) Progressive possibilities Benjamin was excited about the change in perception brought about by film

• it reduces the traditional distance b/n audience and authoritative ‘producer’

Recall how the painter/magician maintains a natural distance However, the cameraman/surgeon “greatly diminishes the distance” This, potentially, allows for enjoyment to more fully coincide with a critical response. Here Benjamin is strongly influenced by the work of the radical German playwright Bertolt Brecht—art can make strange Specifically, film has a totally different aesthetic quality

• fast cuts and montage; not the ‘total picture of painting • such constant sudden visual changes produce a shock effect in

the audience • this shock effect can defamiliarize • may lead audience to take a self-reflexive critical position

Negative possibilities But he also noted a possible negative effect:

The film responds to the shriveling of the aura with the artificial build-up of the ‘personality’ outside the studio. from the shriveling of aura

Compare this to our own historical moment which is filled with the dross and minutia of commercial culture

• E!; Perez Hilton, etc.

Is this the flipside of “the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment”?

• Reality TV Finally, consider two other related factors

…art creates a demand to be satisfied later • the Culture Industry?

Fascism [and war] seeks to give [the masses] expression while preserving private property

Analogue vs. Digital Analogue information works by resemblance Analogue art forms were thought to contain an authenticity This is what Benjamin called ‘aura’ Jacques Derrida called it a ‘metaphysics of presence’:

• a supposed ‘pure and transparent correspondence’ b/n the original and its copy

Analogue media covers what we have been calling ‘broadcast’ or ‘mass’ media

• although broadcast media can be digital (i.e. digital TV) Digital information, on the other hand, works by a fixed codes (1s and 0s)

• i.e. the ‘original’ is converted into a binary language This means that there is no loss of quality as long as you can receive the code

• i.e. ‘copies’ are perfect equivalents of the original It also means there is no aura when cultural expression goes digital Digital culture has no unique presence in time and space

• for Benjamin, that is what given an object its aura Instead, it is intellectual property and subject to market rules, realized in exchange value