The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Peter, Morgan, Nick, JS

In this 1936 text, Walter Benjamin discusses the authenticity of a work of art, its “aura”, the mediums of photography and film, Dadaism and fascism. The text begins by exploring the modes of art reproduction from man-made replication, to lithography, to photography and finally to film, which can capture images as fast as speech. Reproductions however lack the history, authenticity and overall presence, or “aura”, of the original version. This aura is directly related to the piece’s ritual function and the traditional context to which it belongs. With the revolutionary (for the times) reproduction methods of photography and film, there is no authentic, original version and therefore its aura and ritual function are nullified. Art begins to be no longer based on ritual but on politics. Benjamin goes on to discuss the effects of film on the art world and then the relentless destruction of aura in Dadaist creations. In the epilogue Benjamin packs in all his political messages stating how fascism seeks to introduce aesthetics into politics while “Communism responds by politicizing art.”

Our discussion began by trying to solidify a definition for “aura” as it pertains to an art piece. We concluded that the aura of a work of art was based on the belief that it was the authentic version as well as the environment that surrounds it. So the Mona Lisa seen in an art gallery behind plates of glass would inspire awe but no one would care if they saw it in a garage sale, although it could be the authentic version. We also discussed Benjamin’s assertion that we have a desire to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly thus overcoming its uniqueness and destroying its aura. This led to a discussion on micro-sculpture which are sculptures created on the tip of a pin or in a strand of hair. This is interesting because to view these works we must surrender to the representations of the microscope which adjusts reality through magnification. The aura of these works lies not in viewing them in their natural environments, which is impossible to the naked eye, but in the thought of how minuscule they truly are. The discussion suddenly jumped to the futurist movement, which is quoted from in Benjamin’s epilogue. According to Nick, one of the desires of the futurists was to give birth to mechanical cyborgs. Would the aura of these human reproductions be less than their homosapien original? After further discussion on the possibility of splicing genes from three parents together to conceive a baby we returned to Benjamin’s discourse on film. One interesting question about film developed in the text is if the aura of an actor carries through in a film. It is obvious how people back then were still grappling with how the medium of film differs from that of theater. Today we have accepted that film and theater can coexist because the experiences are entirely different. Our discussion continued by asking whether web-based art is inherently devoid of aura. If the original version of an artwork is located on the web then is the artwork being reproduced every time that we visit that website or are we just visiting it like we would visit art in a gallery? Finally we attempted to come to grips with the politically motivated ending to the text but were quite confused by its statements. I was left wondering whether aesthetics has completely permeated our political system today, with PR and advertising firms managing our political candidates and writing their speeches. His predictions that war is the only way of technological advancement while keeping with the capitalist system seem eerily familiar today, but surely we aren’t living in a fascist regime…

Is this loss of aura necessarily a bad thing? And how can we reclaim art’s aura in this era of digital representation?