17 September, 2019
Benjamin Walter's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production" (1935) criticizes the period's mechanical reproduction of art that crushes the authenticity it had in the original time period. The reason art is being reproduced is because artists appeal to the masses. If people have easier, less expensive access to art, they will be more satisfied. He uses the examples of paintings, photographs, and films to display his points
Walter argues that by reproducing art, it can be considered forgery because it shifts the authority and ownership from the artist to the machine. He introduces his “aura” concept, that reproducing art is simply getting a feel for the original, not the intended interpretation. In the next chapter, Walter discusses how human perception changes throughout time, and these changes can be seen in art. A change in aura can demonstrate this. He continues to define aura as something in the distance, a more zoomed out point of view. Today, people want a closer look, which is possible with mass production. By making art available to more people, you are losing its uniqueness. He writes, “’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 if even from a unique object by means of reproduction.” (page 52) This is one of his points that I disagree with. While reproducing art does lose the authenticity of its original context, it can connect with more people and can be further celebrated; more so than it would have been had it not been replicated.
In the following chapter, Walter argues that art comes from tradition, “The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition.” (page 52) He then describes how traditions can change, and that’s the aura and uniqueness of a piece of art. Today, art is designed to be reproduced and takes away any ritual or tradition. Art is being based on “politics” instead of tradition.
Walter goes onto define two values that art is based on: cult and exhibition value. Cult value is designed for an intended audience. With mechanical production, the cult is the masses. Exhibition is based upon how the art is displayed. Today, exhibition is based on quantity. He describes the changing functions with photography like crime scene photography and family portraits.
Walter then shifts his focus to film. He argues that when someone views a film, they do not see all the work and equipment that went into creating it. This, he argues, “renders superficial and insignificant any possible similarity between a scene in the studio and one on stage.” (page 58) This is having to do with the advancement in technology. I think one of his strongest points is when he compared a painter and camera man to a surgeon and magician. A magician heals people by magic, not being in direct contact with them, while a surgeon is up close and personal with the patient and uses precise methods. A painter is not in contact with a person looking at their painting, so people can develop their own opinion. A camera man controls what people see, and people have a clearer understand of what the camera man was trying to convey.
Walter then goes into detail about how people react to different forms of art depending on how they are displayed. He argues that the closer one is to the art, the greater the enjoyment, and mechanical reproduction has made this possible, especially with films. Walter adds that films bring together art and science, while also being able to focus more closely on things that may go unnoticed. He writes, “The enlargement of a snapshot does not simply render more precise what in any case was visible, though unclear: it reveals entirely new structural formations of the subject.” (page 60) He also adds that a person can study a painting for however long they like and decide their opinion on it; while a person in watching a movie cannot do this because the screen changes every second. He describes this as a “shock effect.” This relates to Dadaism, which values usefulness in art above anything else (making it easier to reproduce).
In conclusion, Walter is arguing that machine reproduction of art causes it to lose authenticity and uniqueness that it held in its original context. As forms of art change, the function also changes in what it’s trying to achieve and who it’s trying to attract. I agree with Walter that repurposed art holds a less significant value and meaning than an original piece. However, art should not be held within a small group of the elites; rather, it should be shared with the masses. By making art available to everyone, you are celebrating its beauty. I don’t see this change in function as a bad because it is simply adapting to the current society.