In this week's reading, Walter Benjamin discusses in his piece, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Marx's commentary on the fact that if, reproduction of goods and ideas is done so repeatedly on a grand scale, then it will become impossible to abolish capitalism itself. Benjamin notes that, in the modern day and age, reproduction has reached and been able to permeate all forms and types of media. Whether its printing, painting, crafting, building, rehashing ideas, etc., it can be mass reproduced very quickly. Addiotnally with this, we have entered the era of capitalism's finest hours, and may have potentially crossed the line for never being able to abolish capitalism again.
On a personal level, I believe that in today's day and age, we have very much so crossed that line. Capitalism is a part of our daily lives, it is in every single thing that we do. Our entire lives thrive off of it, or are dismantled by it. If we were to all work hard at reversing its effect, then sure, it would be undoable. Yet, everyone needs to be on board for that, and some people are satisfied with their unoriginal, reproduced artwork.
Benjamin also argues that, with the evolution of technology, that our media is being reproduced before we even get to see the "original." Film, for example, is one of these cases. In this instance, the cameraman intercedes what the audience sees. The audience isn't present for the filming part of it. However, in the case of a painting, he argues, the audience gets a front row view of the creation itself, as one would in theater as opposed to watching it on television. Although, I'd have to disagree with this. It makes sense on one level, that the different shots and angles of the Superbowl which airs on T.V. is a much different experience from what the fans at the stadium see, witness, and experience. Maybe it's better to be there, but then again, maybe it's not. The fans that are actually there are getting uncensored, firsthand experience, while the fans at home get a multi-angle view of all the action. It's different in every case. And if I were to go along the lines of Benjamin's argument, the viewers aren't there for the creation of the painting. They aren't necessarily looking at the painting for its brushstrokes and how long this technique took, what decisions went into making it throughout the painstaking process. They may simply just use the painting as a window in order to see whatever scene or idea the painting is there to represent or to manifest. Again, though, it really depends on everyone's individual and ever-changing perspectives.
On a personal level, I believe that in today's day and age, we have very much so crossed that line. Capitalism is a part of our daily lives, it is in every single thing that we do. Our entire lives thrive off of it, or are dismantled by it. If we were to all work hard at reversing its effect, then sure, it would be undoable. Yet, everyone needs to be on board for that, and some people are satisfied with their unoriginal, reproduced artwork.
Benjamin also argues that, with the evolution of technology, that our media is being reproduced before we even get to see the "original." Film, for example, is one of these cases. In this instance, the cameraman intercedes what the audience sees. The audience isn't present for the filming part of it. However, in the case of a painting, he argues, the audience gets a front row view of the creation itself, as one would in theater as opposed to watching it on television. Although, I'd have to disagree with this. It makes sense on one level, that the different shots and angles of the Superbowl which airs on T.V. is a much different experience from what the fans at the stadium see, witness, and experience. Maybe it's better to be there, but then again, maybe it's not. The fans that are actually there are getting uncensored, firsthand experience, while the fans at home get a multi-angle view of all the action. It's different in every case. And if I were to go along the lines of Benjamin's argument, the viewers aren't there for the creation of the painting. They aren't necessarily looking at the painting for its brushstrokes and how long this technique took, what decisions went into making it throughout the painstaking process. They may simply just use the painting as a window in order to see whatever scene or idea the painting is there to represent or to manifest. Again, though, it really depends on everyone's individual and ever-changing perspectives.
You made a really great point that I didn’t think of. We aren’t there for the creation of the painting either so it’s not a truly firsthand experience. We’re seeing the finished product like the movie. I also agree with you that I’m not completely sold on Benjamin’s argument about film. I agree that it is a different experience than watching a play or acting in a play. The audience and actor have a different role. The actor in a play, if it’s not an improvisational play, has a set of lines but they may feed off the audience’s reaction. They pause if there is loud laughter. They add things in or take things out depending on how it goes over with an audience. The screen actor does not have this opportunity because the audience will only see the finished product. I don’t think it’s fair to refer to film as less than though. It is made to be reproduced and distributed and the author has made their argument about reproducible art, but I’m still not sold that it means the art is of less value. The actor in a movie, a director, filmmaker, movie editor, they are still artists. They’re not the same as a painter or a stage actor, but the work is not devoid of a soul.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely issues with how easy it has become to reproduce unoriginal art. People become more interested in monetary value and trying to figure out what is authentic sometimes than admiring art and trying to create something original. You also mentioned Marx’s commentary that “reproducing goods and ideas on a grand scale will make it impossible to abolish capitalism.” I also agree that we’ve crossed this line and it’s hard to imagine dismantling capitalism when our whole lives are structured around it and there are a lot of powerful people that benefit from the system that would do anything to maintain it. However, there is a benefit to it the Benjamin did not mention. Art is more accessible to people of all class lines. Seeing a play can be very expensive and most people can not fly out to Paris to see the Mona Lisa in person. Some can’t even afford to take their children to the nearest art museum. Or it can be an issue of physical location. Some people live far away from museums and theaters or face obstacles in terms of accessibility. But most can probably save up to see a movie once in awhile and people are familiar with famous art work even if they’ve never seen it in person because it’s in books and movies/tv and many reproductions of it. Of course capitalism plays a role in this. It’s a main factor in the huge income gap and keeping people in poverty. A lot of American museums charge admission while most museums in London are free with the exception of limited time exhibits. But we should also acknowledge that part of it is due to having greater access and channels for creating and seeing art than we’ve had in the past. Art does not have to be for the elite and it’s not just for people that live in cities associated with art like Paris or New York.