In 1936, observing the changes afforded by mechanical reproduction, Walter Benjamin published his seminal and canonical essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In it, he coined the concept of the aura, or “that which withers with reproduction,” which Benjamin ties heavily to authenticity and authority (Benjamin 22). Mechanical reproduction, to Benjamin, liberates the original artwork from its “unique existence” in a specific location in space and time, allowing for copies to “placed…in situations which the original itself cannot attain” (Benjamin, 21). This dynamic, thus, ruptures the ruling class’ monopoly on art objects in arbiting their location, but also ruptures the authority that original art objects possess entirely. Benjamin extends his analysis to the then-emergent media of film and photography. While Benjamin rejoices the death of the aura, he so too rejoices in the codification of film and photography, given that these media have no aura in the first place: they begin as a technological reproduction and remain as a technological reproduction, making it “the first art form whose artistic character is entirely determined by its reproducibility” (Benjamin 28).
|
This development this catalyzes is a democratizing one, in that authorship becomes newly possible for laymen: “Thus, the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character… At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer…the reader gains access to authorship” (Benjamin, 31). But, they are also endowed a transformed ability to allow for hidden political significance, by “unsettl[ing] the viewer, he feels challenged to find a particular way to approach them” (Benjamin, 27). But, Benjamin does not look at film with unreserved enthusiasm and optimism: he ends his paper on an ambivalent note, warning readers and audiences of the commercial stake in coopting the cinema: “… the film industry has an overriding interest in stimulating the involvement of the masses through illusionary displays and ambiguous speculations” (Benjamin 34). His essay’s message is three-fold: it celebrates the atrophication of the aura, rejoices in film’s unique ability to never be inscribed with the aura, and warns of the capitalist advantage in monopolizing film.
|