Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

Critical Analysis of
“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”
Walter Benjamin
(Edited by Hannah Arendt)

*Abstract:
Around the year 1900, the reproduction of works of art and the art of the film have had
on art in its traditional form.
In this piece, Benjamin discusses the profound impact of photography and film on our
cultural conceptions of art. He argues that photography inherently lacks essential
characteristic more stylish forms to create a visual representation: the aura, and hence
that its main use ships from ritual to political.
He discusses a shift in perception and its affects in the wake of the advent of film and
photography in the twentieth century. He writes of the sense changes within
humanity’s entire mode of existence; the way we look and see the visual work of art is
different now and its consequences remain to be determined.
Benjamin devices the concept of the « aura » to explain what he sees as the near
universal significance of uniqueness and permanence regarding what we consider as
art.

* Important cited Figures:

- Walter Benjamin (1892 – 1940): A German Jewish philosopher and cultural critic.
An eclectic thinker, combining elements of German idealism, Romanticism, Western
Marxism, and Jewish mysticism.
Benjamin made enduring and influential contributions to aesthetic theory, literary
criticism, and historical materialism.
Calling himself “the last of the Europeans”, Walter Benjamin was, as Hannah
Arendt observed, a metaphysician who thought poetically. His thought allowed him to
combine conservative aesthetic sensibilities with structuralist and materialist
criticism.
-Hannah Arendt (1906-1975): A German-born American political theorist. She
described herself as a political theorist, She escaped Europe during the Holocaust and
became an American citizen. Her works deal with the nature of power, and the subjects
of politics, direct democracy, authority, and totalitarianism.
-Paul Valéry (1871-1945): was a French poet, essayist, and philosopher. In addition to
his poetry and fiction (drama and dialogues), his interests included aphorisms on art,
history, letters, music, and current events.
Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

- Georges Duhamel (1884-1966) A French author. He trained as a doctor, and

during World War I was attached to the French Army. Duhamel's work was banned by
the Germans. He showed courage in his opposition to the occupation.
- Eugène Atget (1857-1927): A French photographer. He is considered as the pioneer
of documentary photography. He was noted for his determination to document all of
the architecture and street scenes of Paris before their disappearance to
modernization.
An inspiration for the surrealists and other artists, his genius was only recognized by a
handful of young artists in the last two years of his life, and he did not live to see the
wide acclaim his work would eventually receive.

*Important terms and notions:

-The aura of an art work (/ of historical objects): « its presence in time and space, its
unique existence at the place where it happens to be » (Benjamin, 220).
-The aura of natural objects: “the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it
may be” (222).
- The authenticity of a thing: is the essence of all that is transmissible from its
beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the story which it
has experienced (221).
- L’art pour l’art : art for art’s sake.

Captions have become obligatory when Atget, around 1900, photographed deserted
Paris streets like scenes of crime. Hence, photographs acquire a political significance.

From the Photo Collection: Le Paris d’Eugène Atget, 1897

*Questions to consider:

-How can we think of subjectivity in the age of mechanical reproduction?

-What does it mean to reflect back onto ourselves after being absorbed by these
inauthentic and politicized images?
Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

Calling himself “the last of the Europeans”, Walter Benjamin was, as Hannah
Arendt observed, a metaphysician who thought poetically. His thought allowed him to
combine conservative aesthetic sensibilities with structuralist and materialist
criticism.
In this piece, Benjamin discusses the profound impact of photography and film on our
cultural conceptions of art. He argues that photography inherently lacks essential
characteristic more stylish forms to create a visual representation: the aura, and hence
that its main use ships from ritual to political.
He discusses a shift in perception and its affects in the wake of the advent of film and
photography in the twentieth century. He writes of the sense changes within
humanity’s entire mode of existence; the way we look and see the Visual Work of Art
has is different now and its consequences remain to be determined.
Benjamin devices the concept of the « aura » to explain what he sees as the near
universal significance of uniqueness and permanence regarding what we consider as
art.
Around the year 1900, the reproduction of works of art and the art of the film have had
on art in its traditional form.

Benjamin claims that « In principle a work of art has always been reproducible »
but, that « Mechanical Reproduction of a Work of Art, however, represents something
new » (Benjamin, 218). With Lithography, the technique of reproduction reached an
essentially new stage, he said. This new process permitted graphic art to put its
products in the market not only in large numbers, but also in daily changing forms.
Only a few decades after, lithography was surpassed by photography which accelerated
the process of pictorial reproduction.
Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking at one moment: Its
unique existence that determines its history.
Benjamin defines the aura of an art work (/ of historical objects) as: « its presence in
time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be » (220).
Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

The uniqueness of the work of art includes the changes in its ownership, also the
changes it may have suffered in physical conditions over the years.
Reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition by two
basic processes:
- Making a plurality of copies for a unique existence;
- Permitting a reactivation of the object reproduced every time the reproduction meets
the beholder or listener in his own particular situation.
According to Benjamin, these two processes are intimately connected with the
contemporary mass movements and lead to a crisis and renewal of mankind.
The most powerful agent of these processes is the film.
Using the term “aura” Benjamin draws a connection between Art and the Occurrence
of Beauty in the Natural World. While explaining his concept, he instructs as to imagine
the experience of looking at a distant mountain. It’s distant and it’s the only one of its
kind. It’s also tied to its surroundings in its location. This image illustrates the social
bases of the contemporary decay of the aura: contemporary masses desire “to bring
things closer”. In this way, they overcome the uniqueness of every reality by accepting
its reproduction.
Benjamin argues that “the unique value of the ‘authentic’ work of art has its basis in
ritual, the location of its original use value with reference to its aura is never entirely
separated from its ritual functions” (224). With the advent of photography, art reacted
with the doctrine of l’Art Pour l’Art (art for art’s sake) which “gave rise to what might
be called a negative theology in the form of the idea of pure art” (224). Hence,
photography, as a form of Mechanical Reproduction, emancipates the work of art from
its dependence on ritual: “Instead of being based on ritual, it [art] begins to be based
on another practice- politics” (224).
A traditional work of art constitutes a similarly discrete tangible experience, as
Benjamin claims. A masterpiece is considered unique in that no person, artists or
otherwise can duplicate or reproduce it with complete accuracy to its original form: its
value largely comes from its exclusivity.
Benjamin takes the example of The Elk portrayed by the man of the Stone Age on the
walls of his cave. Even if this latter exposes his Elk, considered by Benjamin as a work
of art, to his fellow men; in the main it was meant for the spirit. As works of art were
destined to serve in a cult, what mattered was their existence, not their being in view.
Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

The idea of “aura” isn’t just limited to painting. It can also be applied to other forms of
art as sculpture, where even though a work can be duplicated, the artist’s touch and the
artwork location ( for example if it is located in a museum) play into its illusion of
uniqueness. Partly because museums keep them intact, and partly because history
insures that the artist’s identity and the contextual significance of the work of art
survive through the ages. But photographs are different from paintings and sculptures.
Essentially because photographs make representational images commonplace: they
can be printed, duplicated, displayed on all sorts of media, and still retain their
authentic feel. The camera in many ways replaces the human touch, and the identity of
the artist sizes to necessarily be relevant. With regard to the potentials and limitations
of the medium, photographs are pure representational images with no aura on fixed
contexts.
As, in photography exhibition value begins to displace cult value, this latter does not
give way without resistance. Benjamin argues that “it’s no accident that the portrait
was the focal point of early photography.” (226) Family albums constitute a major
avenue through which cultural values ritualize photographic images, giving them
unique lasting meaning and value within the construct of the family network. Captions
have become obligatory when Atget, around 1900, photographed deserted Paris streets
like scenes of crime. Hence, photographs acquire a political significance.
Theoreticians ask the same hasty questions with regard to both photography and film,
which consist in whether they can be considered as an Art. Their desire to class the film
among the “Arts” forces them to read ritual elements into it. “A sterile copying of the
exterior world” obstructs the elevation of the film to the realm of art. Abel Grance
compares film with hieroglyphs: “Pictorial language have not yet matured because our
eyes have not yet adjusted to it” (227); According to Séverin Mars, “Only the most high
minded persons in the most perfect and mysterious moments of their lives, should be
allowed to enter its [the film] ambiance” (227); Alexandre Arnoux questions about the
ritual angle of conception / perception of the silent film.
Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

From the Photo Collection : Le Paris d’Eugène Atget, 1897

Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

Benjamin establishes a comparison between film and theater;

between the film actor and the stage actor. The audience’s identification varies from
one case to another. The film actor “feels exiled not only from the stage but also from
himself. Since the actor’s performance is presented by means of a camera, the aura that
envelops him vanishes. The stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role.
According to Benjamin, Facing the camera creates the illusion for the film actor of
facing the public. That feeling can contribute to the feeling of worry that grips him
before the camera. The film responds to the shriveling of the aura. There is no more a
unique aura of the person but “the spell of the personality” (231).
As Benjamin continues, a tension between new modes of perception and the aura arise.
The removal of authority within the original work of art infers a loss of authority,
however, in regards to mass consumption, this liberation is not necessarily contingent.
Benjamin suggests a comparison between the cameraman and the painter; and
establishes an analogy with a surgical operation where the surgeon represents the polar
opposite of the magician. The cameraman, for example, intervenes with what we see
in a way which a painting can never do. He directs the eye towards a specific place and
a specific story; he guides us to a particular side of a story and leaves other parts out.
He dulls our perception towards the work of art and introduces distraction as a mode
of reception. Across the use of the analogy with a surgical operation, Benjamin proves
that “the representation of reality by the film is more significant than that of the
painter, since it offers […] an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment.
Yet Benjamin makes it clear that there is a progressive reaction of the masses toward
art. This progressive reaction is characterized by the intimate fusion of visual and
emotional enjoyment.
Comparing to film, painting is in no position to present an object for simultaneous
collective experience. A painting has always had an excellent chance to be viewed by
one person or by a few. In the new age of mechanical reproducibility, paintings began
to be publicly exhibited in galleries. The simultaneous contemplation of paintings is,
a symptom of the crisis of painting.
Benjamin argues that “The film has enriched our field of perception with methods
which can be illustrated with those of Freudian theory” (235): behavior items shown in
a movie can be analyzed much more precisely and from more points of view than those
presented on paintings or on the stage.
Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

Compared with:
-painting, filmed behavior provides more precise statements of the situation,
-the stage scene (theater), filmed behavior can be isolated more easily. Hence it
becomes more readily to analysis.
Film provides also a mutual fascination of the viewer by the artistic and the scientific
values of the scenes (close-ups, snapshots, slow motions …).
In the new age of mechanical reproduction the contemplation of a screen and the
nature of the film itself has changed in such a way that the individual no longer
contemplates the film per say; the film contemplates them.
As Georges Duhamel argues: “This constitutes the shock effect of the film, which like
all shocks, should be cushioned by heightened presence of mind” (238)
For Benjamin, it is clear that the masses seek distraction whereas art demands
concentration from the spectator.
There is an opposition between concentration and distraction: a man who concentrates
while observing a work of art is absorbed by it. In contrast, the mass absorbs the work
of art. Reception in a state of distraction finds in the film its true means of exercise. By
the fact that at the movies the position of the critic requires no attention, the public is
an examiner but an absent-minded one. To illustrate his thesis, Benjamin takes the
example of the perception of architectural buildings. Since they had always represented
the prototype of a work of art, and have been man’s companions since primal times,
their reception is consummated by collectivity in a state of distraction.

EPILOGUE

Benjamin argues that “the logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetic into
political life” (241).
Regarding to the writer, Fascism tends to give masses not their right, but instead, a
chance to express themselves. Both the political and the technological formulas of
rendering politics aesthetic by Fascists, culminate in one implicit goal: establishing
war.
“Fiat ars-pereat mundus!” (Let the art world perish!) ; Says Fascism. This notion
expects war to supply the artistic gratification of a sense perception that has been
changed by technology.
Critical Analysis of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” _ Inaam Jaffel

To conclude,

Benjamin here attempts to mark something specific about the modern age; of the
effects of modernity on the work of art in particular. Film and photography point to
this movement. Benjamin writes of the loss of the aura through the mechanical
reproduction of art itself. The aura represents here at the same time the originality and
the authenticity of a work of art that has not been reproduced. A painting has an aura
while a photograph does not; the photograph is an image of an image while the painting
remains utterly original: “In time and space, its unique existence at the place where it
happens to be” (220). The uniqueness of the work of art includes the changes in its
ownership, also the changes it may have suffered in physical conditions over the years.
The aura for Benjamin represents the originality and authenticity of a work of art that
has not been reproduced.