Precis for Benjamin Walter's The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction

In order to answer the questions the perplex me, I must first lay out the problem itself. In his essay, “The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin discusses a shift in perception of what constitutes art and its affects due to the advent of film and photography in the twentieth century. According to Walter, the way we look and see the visual work of art has changed dramatically due to the creation of film and cinematography. More specifically, Walter suggests that through the mechanical reproduction of art i.e. through the process of creating a perfect film devoid of any “slippage of tongues” or imperfections; the aura of a piece of art is withered and destroyed. This withering is, in the opinion of Walter, similar to the commoditization of objects which Marx described.

The aura that Walter describes is a piece of art’s sense of meaning, uniqueness and presence. In other words, the aura represents the originality and authenticity of a work of art. As an example, Walter describes how a painting possesses an aura and yet a photograph does not because it is not unique; it is simply a copy of some piece of scenery. To Walter, a painting contains within it the power and soul of the painter who spent a multitude of painstaking hours attempting to replicate something knowing that nothing they could do would ever create an exact copy. Modern technology however, has made the dreams of many painters possible; while in the action of doing so has erased the originality and authenticity of the work of art. It has taken from the art the very thing that made it art and Walter fears the consequences of such actions.

If we lose the aura of the art, we lose the singular authority within the work of art itself. As perplexing and ominous as this thought is, Walter is even more intrigued by the tension between the new modes of perception and the aura. Walter points out that some do not see the effects which mechanical reproduction has had on the world as a negative outcome. It seems to him that the need for mass consumption and production of art has caused many to enjoy the pleasures which mechanical reproduction bring. Some feel that the cameraman, for example, intervenes with what we see in a way which a painting can never do. He directs the eye towards a specific place and a specific story in a manner which is both totalitarian and beautiful.

But Walter is still a skeptic. In his opinion, the “art” of cinematography dulls our perception of art and leaves out the essence of the art itself. When a person watches a live play, they are able to see the characters from a multitude of views rather than the narrow chosen out view that the cameraman chooses for us. In this sense, movies have no aura for Walter because while they are sometimes original, they do not leave things open for interpretation. When someone copied a painting, only a few could find the aura of it. Those few were skilled individuals who knew enough of the artist to see the subtle changes in the copier’s stroke or distribution of the characters. This lack of participation is worrisome for Walter.

Similarly, Walter feels one cannot truly participate in a movie other than to simply observe it. The movie is being played out before us like a story, yet the orator is a set of lines on a screen devoid of any emotion and the actions which occur on the screen are ever the same and do not possess the beauty of subtle changes and mistakes. The movie consumes us at the same time as we consume it. This, Walter suggests, is not necessarily a negative thing, but rather something to be noted and watched; its implications, whether detrimental or beneficial, yet to be determined. The loss of the aura has the potential to open up the politicization of art and though that opening our culture stands to be changed from one of the inspector to one of the inspected – that is to say that through our loss of the aura of art we stand the chance to lose our ability to inspect art and in turn allow the art to inspect us. We have in a sense begun a process of commoditization of art in which the art loses its aura (its essence of originality) through the mass reproduction and mechanical production of it.

While I do very much agree with Walter in his belief that the induction of mechanical reproduction of art and products has had a dramatic impact on the art itself, I do not believe that the aura which he describes is necessarily lost. Art is unique because of the vision and heart that is put into it; not how it was made. So in this sense, a picture can have just as much aura as a painting; the only difference in the form in which the artist choose to express themselves. A picture can be unique in many ways; for instance: the cameraman’s choice of lighting, angle, positioning of the object(s), and even the camera itself can all have a dramatic effect on the overall look and feel of the picture. Thus to say that photography has no aura in simply incorrect and short sighted (I realize he probably wasn’t a master on photography, however to say that photography isn’t art is like saying Picasso wasn’t an artist because he didn’t use enough red in his paintings – that is to say that art is a very subjective thing and the biggest flaw in Walter’s essay is that he assumes a limited point of view on art which doesn’t adequately speak to the idea of new forms of art).

This brings me to question Walter’s belief that we have commoditized art; if, as I previously stated, art has not lost its aura due to the mechanical reproduction of art, then it stands to reason that Walter’s argument is seriously flawed. With that ultimatum out of the way, I would like to say that I do not disagree with Walter completely. It is true that we have begun to commodify art and movies in general; however, they have not lost their artistic roots. No two movies are the same. Many of you may instantly say well what about remakes or renditions of movies? Aren’t they the same? To that I would answer with an assured no. A rendition of a movie will generally have different actors and different scenes and in that simplest sense they are different and unique. Just the fact that they differ even in the slightest from the original makes them unique and gives them their own aura. If a copy of a painting can have an aura then so can a copy of a movie. While there are undoubtedly some really bad and meaningless movies out there, they still have aura.

To sum up, I found this essay to very interesting especially when viewed from a futuristic perspective. Having grown up in a time of movies and cameras, the theories Walter presents seem strange and laudable, however I can only imagine what it must have been like to see such a dramatic change happen within your lifetime. Walter is slightly more justified in his argument by the fact that he is writing from the view of what seems to be a Marxist point of view to others who share his sentiments and beliefs. After having written my overly critical assessment of his argument, I realized that my reasons for criticizing him lie in the fact that I am from a different time period – a time period which has seen a strange myriad of art forms emerge and become accepted. I welcome any questions (I am sure I was incorrect on many accounts) and would like to hear what others thought of Walter and his essay.

-Skyler