https://sites.nd.

edu/visconsi-holland/2017/01/31/walter-benjamin-the-work-of-art-in-the-age-of-its-
technological-reproducibility/

Walter Benjamin- The Work of Art

in the Age of its Technological
Reproducibility – Shakespeare in
the Digital Age
Walter Benjamin wrote “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological
Reproducibility” during his years of exile in France from Nazi Germany.
Benjamin was deeply a ected by the extremely politically tumultuous situation
in France. Therefore, it is only inevitable that as a response to the political
turmoil he experienced and su ered, he would envision the work of art in his
ongoing projects as an active political instrument. He worked on the essay from
1935 to 1939 and produced three versions. The fact that Benjamin persistently
reworked the essay indicates that he was constantly analysing and re-analysing
the political potential of contemporary art forms.

Benjamin begins the essay with Marx’s prognostications about capitalism. He

writes that according to Marx capitalism would not only cause ruthless
exploitation of the proletariat, it would also lead to the generation of conditions
which would ultimately cause its own destruction. Benjamin feels that the
change in the mode of production demands the formulation of new theses
which would outline the propensities behind the creation of art in the
transformed economic environment. The new theses of art would render
fascism dysfunctional because it would diminish the importance of creativity
and genius, eternal value and mystery, concepts traditionally associated with the
work of art. These are the very concepts which if applied in an unrestrained
manner may leave factual material susceptible to manipulation by fascism (20).

Benjamin admits that the work of art has always been reproducible. But the
technological reproduction of art is something new and di erent (20).
Benjamin identi ed two major manifestations of the technological reproduction
of art. The rst is the reproduction of any form of art using modern
technological mechanisms (like photography) which profoundly a ects the
authenticity of the original work of art. The second is the process of
technological reproduction itself as a work of art, such as the art of lm (21).

Benjamin explains that the technological modes of reproduction obliterates the

mark of authenticity from the work of art. Yet it is di erent from replicas made
with hand, which are usually considered as counterfeit copies. Firstly,
technological reproduction often emphasizes aspects of works of art which
might not otherwise be accessible to the human senses (such as the ner details
of an architecture captured in a photograph). Benjamin gives the example of
lms where the camera reveals what he terms as the “optical unconscious”
which might usually remain beyond the reach of normal sense perceptions (37).
Secondly, it can also spread the copy of the original in locations which would be
unreachable by the original (for example, the recording of a musical concert can
easily be circulated beyond the auditorium) (21-22). Technological
reproduction often produces copies of the work of art which outlive the original
work of art, thus making the physical lifespan of the actual work largely
irrelevant. Benjamin perceives this as a devaluation of the “here and now” of the
artwork by technological reproduction, which he terms as the decaying of the
aura of the work of art. As numerous copies of the artwork are made, the
unique existence of the original piece of work is overwritten by the mass
existence of its innumerable replicas. Benjamin de nes the aura as “a strange
tissue of space and time: the unique apparition of a distance, however near it
may be” (23). The original work of art is marked by tradition, heritage,
permanence, and uniqueness which contribute to the constitution of its aura.
As opposed to this, the replica is characterized by its transitoriness and
repeatability (23).

Benjamin notes that the unique value of the authentic work of art originates in
ritual practices. But technological reproduction liberates the work of art from
its subservience to ritual roots as making replicas in a secular setting now
becomes one of the purposes behind the creation of art. Once the work of art is
detached from its ritualistic roots, its social function is immediately redirected
towards political goals (24-25). It is no longer de ned by its ritualistic cult value,
rather its exhibition value becomes its dominant feature (27).

Film, Benjamin points out, is the work of art which is identi ed as such entirely
by its reproducibility (28). He contrasts lms with Classical Greek art, such as
sculptures, the technological mode of production of which did not allow for
much future modi cations to be executed. Therefore, the Greeks were left with
little choice but to attempt to create eternal value in a single piece of art (27). As
opposed to this, the technology used in making lms allows the artist to make
numerous modi cations and improvements over time. Therefore lmmaking
does not undergo the compulsion of generating eternal value (28).

For Benjamin, the most striking feature of a lm is not that it replicates everyday
life, but that the actor has to perform in front of a mechanical apparatus. The
actor’s performance in the studio is captured by the mechanical apparatus and is
replicated across multiple screens. Such replication dissolves the aura of the
performance that the actor originally delivers in the studio (31).

Benjamin then goes on to distinguish between the art lover and the mass
audience. The art lover closely observes the work of art in order to appreciate its
innate aesthetic value. But the mass approaches art in order to seek distraction
or entertainment. The art lover is thus absorbed by the work of art. On the
contrary, in case of the masses, the work of art is assimilated in the mass
audience (39-40). Once it is incorporated among the masses the work of art acts
as an instrument of political mobilization (41).
Reaction

Benjamin’s concept of the dissolution of the aura is especially relevant for born-
digital material. Works of art which originate on the digital platform are
inherently replicable across various screens and devices. The distinction between
an original and a copy is not tenable in this case. Whenever the work will be
viewed on a device it would simultaneously stand as an original and a replica.
The inability to cast a retrospective glance towards an original renders such
works almost devoid of a past and makes them rooted in the present. Such
works can only look forward to the future when they will be viewed over and
over again on a digital screen.

It has been noted by Benjamin that the technological mode of production of the
work art provides opportunities for modi cations and improvements. Works of
art on a digital platform can be modi ed whenever required. They are thus in a
state of perpetual mutability. Therefore, instead of eternal beauty such works
are characterized by eternal instability.

Question

Benjamin identi es the political potential of lms in the context where they
would be viewed collectively by the mass in a theatre. He states that in a movie
theatre the reaction of the individual viewer is regulated by the type of reception
generated in the mass. He draws a contrast between a lm and a painting in this
respect where he states that the painting is largely designed to be viewed a single
person or a few. Such a distinction between the modes of viewing a lm and a
painting is no longer true as a consequence of modern technological
innovations. Presently it is possible to watch a lm privately on a laptop in the
solitude of one’s bedroom. How then does private viewing create an impact on
the mass appeal/reception of lm? How does it change the political functioning
of lm?

Work Cited
Walter Benjamin. “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological
Reproducibility: Second Version.” Translated by Edmund Jephcott and Harry
Zohn. In The Work of art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility, and
Other Writings on Media. Edited by Michael W. Jennings, Brigid Doherty, and
Thomas Y. Levin. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008. 19-55.