Session 10: 30 November Theorizing Mass Media II: Culture/Art for the Masses?

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

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. The state of their technology compel the Greeks to produce eternal values in their art.

Benjamin and Media Theory While Benjamin is not always considered a media theorist per se, some of his work directly examines the organization of human perception vis-à-vis the medium in which it occurs

• thus his consideration of aura • thus his focus on film (i.e. the montage, editing, camera effects,

etc.) How can we read reproducibility via technics (media theory)?

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

Authenticity is function of transmissibility 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

If we apply contemporary media theory here, two kinds of history or memory end up at odds

i) historical testimony of the technics—as ‘organic repository of memory’ ii) historical testimony of the object of art

In short, there are two distinct, but interrelated forms of historical testimony (accumulation of experience)

• i) technics • ii) object of art

Benjamin and the ratio of sensory perception

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, but also radio) He introduce 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 which was known as “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’

Key Concepts and themes 1) Contextualizing Benjamin 2) Technological Reproduction (or, culture and the mode of production) 3) Aura and authenticity 4) Art and the medium of reproduction

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) • 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) 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

• enabling 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

3) Aura and authenticity Historically, that is before the age of technological reproducibility, all art had an aura Aura is another way of emphasizing the fixed and monumental characteristics of art

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

• the authentic on one side • the copy on the other

The authentic prescribes two qualities to art

• market value—original • ritualistic value—aura

Benjamin on authenticity:

a most sensitive nucleus…the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history to which it has experienced.

To understand the relationship b/n aura and authenticity, let’s go back in time to when art was not a commodity but performed a ritualistic function

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 fixed in place

• frescoes, mosaics, and sculptures What is ‘aura’? Benjamin begins with reference to the natural world—i.e. the aura experienced from the particular view of a beautiful mountain range

• an expression of the singularity of a work of art • that is, how art exists in a singular time and space • key characteristics are is ritualistic function and thus authority • the authenticity of the work of art comes from this specific

ritualistic use in a particular place and time Benjamin contends that this 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” Keep in mind all of that when we watch the following clip from Rome Video clip: Rome, Season 2, Episode 2, ‘Son of Hades’ (29:05)

Aura emphasizes tradition Even after art ceases to have exclusively, or primarily, ritualistic use, a work of art’s ‘auratic’ value remained central. ‘Aura’ came to be associated with idealist concepts of value:

• creativity and genius • authenticity • originality • beauty • eternal value • mystery

Benjamin was troubled by the notion of aura because of these idealist associations, which were linked with the Fascist aesthetic They also ascribe an elite quality on both the production and experience of art Aura ‘withers away’ with reproduction But it was photography that truly changed the function of art, ending the grip of aura and its foundation in the uniqueness and permanence of the work of art Reproduction renews and preserves the original artistic representation on the one hand, and destroys the traditional context of its production on the other hand. Film completes this transition, with its “tremendous shattering of tradition” and as a result aura withers away The potential of ‘art in the age of mechanical reproduction’ Remember that art—pre-mechanical reproducibility—was available only to the elite One thing that mechanical reproduction does is radically expand the circuit of the distribution and consumption of art—indeed, initiates consumption as a new dominant form of r/n with art But what are the effects on ‘tradition’ and ‘aura’? With the fruition of industrial mass production in the early 20th c., art itself begins to be subsumed under a wave of commodified culture (c.f. ‘culture industry’) Commodification, by definition, depend upon multiple copies This brings us to Benjamin’s unique perspective. For Adorno, mass production did nothing more than produce mass conformity

Benjamin sees radical potential:

[Film’s] social significance, particularly in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive cathartic aspect, that is, the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage

Art is no longer enslaved to tradition. Authenticity and ritualistic function are no longer defining characteristics. Indeed, its very reproducibility, and expanded scope of circulation, opens I up to working class audiences and progressive political movements Specifically, film offers “simultaneous collective experience” which the masses could never experience with paintings or photography

4) 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) Video clip: Fragments of Benjamin (38:29) 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 artforms 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