HOME

On Walter Benjamin

Along with what Benjamin refers to as the loss of ‘aura’ in “Art in the Age Mechanical Reproduction”, there is a fundamental change in the way people experience art. The advent of new technologies for mechanical reproduction challenge the direct relationship between man and his craft, dissolving the distinct sensation received in the presence and production of ‘original’ art. For Benjamin, the work of art with aura has a unique existence, with an associated cult and ritual that the observer is directly affected by. In contrast, “mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual”, and displaces it with what he calls “exhibition value”. In other words, instead of uniqueness, there is multiplicity, and the art is brought under the control and scrutiny of mass audiences, leading to a ‘withering’ of the aura (i.e. specificity). This “withering” of aura and alteration of how man experiences art is implicit in the evolution of the ‘new’ mediums of art: photography, film, and architecture.

Benjamin begins with a questioning of photography, not so much in whether it is a legitimate form of art in and of itself, but more so in its role in the extraction of aura from objects. Benjamin makes the assertion that there is an implied multiplicity in photography that changes the way the public views art and perceives images. Photographs are not like other things, because even when unique, they have already been reproduced. He states, “In photography, exhibition value begins to displace cult value all along the line.” (225) In other words, the photograph as an art may provoke a sensation (exhibition value), but not the sensation or experience of the object itself (cult value). More specifically, he contends that the lens of the camera brings out details of the original that would otherwise go unnoticed (e.g. if you were to take a still photograph of a hummingbird). This process puts “a copy of the orginal into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself” and thereby undermines the oringinal’s “presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” Therefore, it removes the aura of the object because it detaches the unique object from its tradition (221).

Benjamin makes a similar assertion towards film. He contends that “film is the art form that is in keeping with the increased threat to his life which modern man has to face”, which is to say that “man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to this presence; there can be no replica.” In other words, through film, man himself is removed from an authentic reality, thus losing his aura, or direct relationship with his fellow man. Benjamin elaborates on this point with the comparison of the stage actor to the film actor with an analogy to the surgeon and the magician. The stage actor is presented to the public in person. The aura on the stage that is emanated cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. In this case, there is a reciprocal and ritualistic relationship between the stage actor and the observer, creating a wholistic view of the performance (magician). In contrast to this, the filmmaker presents the performance of the film actor in pieces that are composed of many separate performances. The filmmaker permeates reality with mechanical equipment, and is able to edit, cut, and assemble reality to however he sees fit (film as montage). As a result, the observer does not see the entire picture, and needs not respect the performance as an integral whole. (surgeon).

Benjamin is concerned that film and other fields of art are training people to be passive observers. He states, “Reception in a state of distraction, which is increasing noticeably in all fields of art and is symptomatic of profound changes in apperception, finds in the film its true means of exercise…The film 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 position requires no attention. The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one.” (???) With this notion, he comments on the role of architecture. For Benjamin, architecture is an art form that the masses of people can passively experience. “Distraction and concentration form polar opposites which may be stated as follows: a man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it. He enters the work. In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art. This is most obvious with regard to buildings. Architecture has always represented the prototype of a work of art the reception of which is consummated by a collectivity in a state of distraction.” (239). In other words, architecture has lost its aura because people habitually experience it in a state of distraction. This habitual consumption of architecture is attributed to the modernist movement that embraced the aesthetic value of industrialism and mechanical reproduction. Modern architecture, as Benjamin would put it, is a “the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility.” Because of the mass exportation of the ‘Universal Style’, architecture has lost its sense of place (aura) and has been reduced to the mere production of ‘space’ (Frampton). In its place, architecture begins to immerse itself in exhibition value by promoting its sign-like characteristic as both an artistic and functional response to cultural conditions (Jencks + Venturi).

In sum, Benjamin contends that because of the implicit reproducibility in photography, film, and architecture, these mediums of art have a tendency to extract aura from the original object, so in place of uniqueness, we get multiplicity. Benjamin concludes that the consequences of this process is “to pry an object from its shell to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose “sense of the universal equality of things” has increased to such a degree that is extracts even from a unique object by means of reproduction.” (223)