Work of Art in the Age Walter Benjamin Summary

1935 essay by Walter Benjamin

In "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), Walter Benjamin addresses the creative and cultural, social, economic, and political functions of art in a capitalist society.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), by Walter Benjamin, is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of an objet d'art.^[ane] That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absenteeism of traditional and ritualistic value, the product of art would exist inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Deutschland, Benjamin's essay presents a theory of art that is "useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a mass-culture order.^[ii]

The subject and themes of Benjamin's essay: the aura of a piece of work of fine art; the creative authenticity of the artefact; its cultural authorisation; and the aestheticization of politics for the product of art, became resources for research in the fields of fine art history and architectural theory, cultural studies and media theory.^[3]

The original essay, "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of its Technological Reproducibility," was published in iii editions: (i) the German language edition, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, in 1935; (2) the French edition, L'œuvre d'art à l'époque de sa reproduction mécanisée, in 1936; and (iii) the German revised edition in 1939, from which derive the contemporary English translations of the essay titled "The Work of Fine art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction."^[four]

Summary [edit]

In "The Piece of work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) Walter Benjamin presents the thematic basis for a theory of art past quoting the essay "The Conquest of Ubiquity" (1928), by Paul Valéry, to constitute how works of art created and developed in past eras are different from contemporary works of fine art; that the agreement and treatment of art and of artistic technique must progressively develop in society to understand a work of art in the context of the modern time.

Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose power of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. But the amazing growth of our techniques, the adjustability and precision they accept attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that profound changes are impending in the aboriginal arts and crafts of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as information technology used to be, which cannot remain unaffected past our modern knowledge and power. For the terminal xx years neither thing nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must wait great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and mayhap even bringing well-nigh an amazing modify in our very notion of art.^[v]

Creative product [edit]

In the Preface, Benjamin presents Marxist analyses of the organisation of a capitalist society and establishes the place of the arts in the public sphere and in the private sphere. He and then explains the socio-economical conditions to extrapolate developments that further the economic exploitation of the proletariat, whence arise the social conditions that would abolish capitalism. Benjamin explains that the reproduction of art is not an exclusively modern human action, citing examples such as artists manually copying the piece of work of a chief artist. Benjamin reviews the historical and technological developments of the ways for the mechanical reproduction of art, and their furnishings upon gild's valuation of a work of fine art. These developments include the industrial arts of the foundry and the stamp mill in Ancient Greece; and the modern arts of woodcut relief-printing, engraving, etching, lithography, and photography, all of which are techniques of mass production that permit greater accuracy in reproducing a piece of work of art.^[6]

Authenticity [edit]

The aureola of a work of art derives from authenticity (uniqueness) and locale (concrete and cultural); Benjamin explains that "even the most perfect reproduction of a work of fine art is lacking in one element: Its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the identify where it happens to be" located. He writes that the "sphere of [creative] authenticity is outside the technical [sphere]" of mechanised reproduction.^[7] Therefore, the original work of fine art is an objet d'art independent of the mechanically accurate reproduction; yet, by irresolute the cultural context of where the artwork is located, the being of the mechanical re-create diminishes the aesthetic value of the original work of art. In that way, the aureola — the unique aesthetic say-so of a work of art — is absent from the mechanically produced copy.^[8]

Value: cult and exhibition [edit]

Regarding the social functions of an artefact, Benjamin said that "Works of art are received and valued on different planes. Two polar types stand out; with one, the accent is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work. Artistic production begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve in a cult. One may assume that what mattered was their beingness, non their being on view."^[9] The cult value of religious art is that "certain statues of gods are accessible but to the priest in the cella; certain madonnas remain covered nearly all yr round; certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on basis level."^[10] In do, the diminished cult value of a religious artefact (an icon no longer venerated) increases the artefact'southward exhibition value equally art created for the spectators' appreciation, because "it is easier to exhibit a portrait bosom, that can be sent here and there [to museums], than to exhibit the statue of a divinity that has its fixed place in the interior of a temple."^[xi]

The mechanical reproduction of a work of fine art voids its cult value, because removal from a fixed, private space (a temple) and placement in mobile, public space (a museum) allows exhibiting the art to many spectators.^[12] Further explaining the transition from cult value to exhibition value, Benjamin said that in "the photographic image, exhibition value, for the beginning time, shows its superiority to cult value."^[thirteen] In emphasising exhibition value, "the work of fine art becomes a creation with entirely new functions," which "later may be recognized as incidental" to the original purpose for which the creative person created the Objet d'fine art.^[14]

As a medium of artistic production, the cinema (moving pictures) does not create cult value for the motion picture, itself, because "the audience'due south identification with the histrion is really an identification with the photographic camera. Consequently, the audience takes the position of the camera; its arroyo is that of testing. This is not the approach to which cult values may exist exposed." Therefore, "the motion picture makes the cult value recede into the background, not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but also by the fact that, at the movies, this [disquisitional] position requires no attention."^[xv]

Fine art as politics [edit]

The social value of a work of art changes as a society change their value systems; thus the changes in artistic styles and in the cultural tastes of the public follow "the manner in which homo sense-perception is organized [and] the [artistic] medium in which it is accomplished, [which are] adamant not only by Nature, just past historical circumstances, as well."^[seven] Despite the socio-cultural effects of mass-produced, reproduction-art upon the aureola of the original work of art, Benjamin said that "the uniqueness of a piece of work of art is inseparable from its being embedded in the fabric of tradition," which separates the original work of art from the reproduction.^[7] That the ritualization of the mechanical reproduction of fine art also emancipated "the work of fine art from its parasitical dependence on ritual,"^[7] thereby increasing the social value of exhibiting works of fine art, which exercise progressed from the individual sphere of life, the owner'south enjoyment of the aesthetics of the artefacts (usually High Art), to the public sphere of life, wherein the public bask the same aesthetics in an art gallery.

Influence [edit]

In the late-twentieth-century tv set programme Ways of Seeing (1972), John Berger proceeded from and developed the themes of "The Work of Fine art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), to explain the contemporary representations of social form and racial caste inherent to the politics and production of art. That in transforming a piece of work of fine art into a commodity, the modern ways of artistic product and of artistic reproduction take destroyed the artful, cultural, and political authority of art: "For the starting time time e'er, images of art accept get ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free," because they are commercial products that lack the aureola of authenticity of the original objet d'art.^[16]

Come across likewise [edit]

• Aestheticization of politics
• Art for art'south sake

References [edit]

1. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects (2011) Routledge, London, p. 0000.
2. ^ Scannell, Paddy. (2003) "Benjamin Contextualized: On 'The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,'" in Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are At that place Whatsoever? Should There Be? How About These?, Katz et al. (Eds.) Polity Press, Cambridge. ISBN 9780745629346. pp. 74–89.
3. ^ Elliott, Brian. Benjamin for Architects, Routledge, London, 2011.
4. ^ Notes on Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", a commentary by Gareth Griffiths, Aalto University, 2011. ^{[ permanent dead link ]}
5. ^ Paul Valéry, La Conquête de l'ubiquité (1928)
6. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 01.
7. ^ ^{a b c d} Walter Benjamin (1968). Hannah Arendt (ed.). "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Illuminations . London: Fontana. pp. 214–18. ISBN9781407085500.
8. ^ Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2008). "Benjamin's Aureola," Critical Research No. 34 (Winter 2008)
9. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
10. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
11. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
12. ^ "Cult vs. Exhibition, Section Two". Samizdat Online. 2016-07-xx. Retrieved 2020-05-22 .
13. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. 4.
14. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Piece of work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. four.
15. ^ Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Historic period of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) p. v–six.
16. ^ Berger, John. Means of Seeing. Penguin Books, London, 1972, pp. 32–34.

External links [edit]

• Complete text of the essay, translated
• Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (1932-1941) - Download the original text in French, "L'œuvre d'fine art à l'époque de sa reproduction méchanisée," in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung Jahrgang V, Félix Alcan, Paris, 1936, pp. 40–68 (23MB)
• Consummate text in German (in High german)
• Partial text of the essay, with commentary past Detlev Schöttker (in High german)
• A comment to the essay on "diségno"

herrodposinever.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction#:~:text=a%20capitalist%20society.-,%22The%20Work%20of%20Art%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20Mechanical%20Reproduction,of%20an%20objet%20d'art.

Share this post