Thoughts on Benjamin (blog)

Some Thoughts on; The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. By Walter Benjamin 1936

From Idiocracy, 2006, director Mike Judge

     Photography reduced the human component necessary for artistic production to the eye allowing creative process to move at speed of perception.  What happens to aesthetic synthesis when one no longer needs to synthesize perception “brick by brick”, so to speak? Much as the layers of paint required allowing an image to emerge as it were. Is perception and creative synthesis compromised? The photograph allows for arrival without journey, at least from a formal perspective.

It seems now we work with layers of images to articulate meaning. I’m not quite sure how to, or if it is even necessary to qualify this development. Without a requirement for aesthetic synthesis, though, does the artist lose something?

     The “original” becomes accessible to wider audience but its aura is removed.

“Quality of presence” is removed. I’m not sure this has much to do with good or bad yet; it certainly represents a new way to mediate the world. I suppose this idea suggests we must not rely on the processes used to in the past to gain understanding of how we occupy the world.

     What I found possibly the most intriguing aspect of Benjamin’s inquiry is the question as to what degree does authenticity serve historical testimony and to what degree is it compromised by mechanical reproduction?

     This is a relevant question because one must now ask what the dynamic of these questions when applied to current technologies in terms of how we perceive “truths” and how we express our interpretations and manifestations of these perceived truths.

      As humans have we innately and even unwittingly acted out an inner desire to express truths according to our “ideal” vision of a truth to thwart a genuine confrontation?

     Is this revealed in sense since the idea of “reproduction” began (bronze casting and woodcuts)?  In other words concepts of truth, as they are represented are modeled through the artists vision of truth, which may or may not be “tainted” by her ideals and or values. Also, once the uniqueness of art objects are removed (reduced to reproductions) the power becomes delimited or transferred to the conceptual. Once the ownership concept came more largely into play the concept of intellectual property became a means of harnessing power through the guise of image egalitarianism.

I recall mentioning during our class discussion that there are probably only a handful of food producers who hold the intellectual property rights to the seeds of the most valuable sources of the world’s food. So, even indigenous, agrarian farmers cannot be free of global industrial capitalism.

     Film seems to be the medium that Benjamin assigns the most significance to in terms of its relevance and ability to embody the components of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Of course, photography was significant in the trajectory of its evolution.

Photography was at least capable of, as Walter Benjamin notes, “arresting a moment”.

It provides “shock” without the contemplative moral underpinnings as in Dada.

     A key and possibly pivotal quote from Georges Duhamel, “a pastime for helots, a diversion for uneducated, wretched, worn-out creatures who are consumed by their worries a spectacle which kindles no light in the heart and awakens no hope other then the ridiculous one of someday becoming a ‘star’ in Los Angeles.” Art demands concentration while the masses seek distraction.  I remember at some point reading the late Christopher Hitchen’s book Why Orwell Matters and reading that George Orwell had a very similar attitude towards Hollywood. I tried to find something online regarding this reference and found this from the book, Every Intellectual’ Big Brother, George Orwell’s Literary Siblings by John Rodden which was published in 2006 by The University of Texas Press. On page 97 Rodden writes; “ he (Orwell) paid America little attention, except to condemn its slick magazines and the Hollywood film industry”. I suppose I mention all this only to point out that any powerful highly sensory medium such as film present a slippery slope in terms of how it can be used to appeal to the very lowest common denominators. This is a subject that probably warrants more of my attention late    

     Film seems to be the medium that Benjamin assigns the most significance to in terms of its relevance and ability to embody the components of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Of course photography was significant in the trajectory of its evolution. Photography was at least capable of, as Walter Benjamin notes, “arresting a moment”. I can’t help but try to speculate how Susan Sontag may respond to this statement. She certainly provided some relevant views in this regard in her book, Regarding the Pain of Others as it relates to representations of “truth”.  This is a side note but something I have been wondering about for a while. It regards those ubiquitous “air quotes” lot of people make these days. I’m guessing it is a post modern vehicle that people use to absolve themselves of taking full responsibility for use of the word in question like, “truth”.

A few more comments on the Walter Benjamin essay, "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction".

Photography reduced the human component necessary for artistic production to the eye, thereby allowing creative process to move at the speed of perception. What happens to aesthetic synthesis when one no longer needs to synthesize perception “brick by brick”, so to speak, much as layers of paint are required to allow an image to emerge as it were? Is perception and creative synthesis compromised? The photograph allows for arrival without journey, at least from a formal perspective.

It seems now we work with layers of fully resolved images to articulate meaning. I’m not quite sure how to, or if it is even necessary to qualify this development. Without a requirement for aesthetic synthesis, though, does the artist lose something?

More Thoughts on Benjamin

Marinetti wrote “War is beautiful because it establishes man’s dominion over the subjugated machinery by means of gas masks, terrifying megaphones, flame throwers, and small tanks." 
If this is true of the aesthetics of modern warfare I ask two questions , what are the aesthetic components of hand to hand combat and what are the aesthetic components of contemporary methods of warfare? (I.E. what are the aesthetics humans face to face with the intention to kill the other and what is the aesthetic of a human sitting in an office in Las Vegas dropping bombs in Iraq as if it were a video game only to go out to Taco Bell for lunch with "co-warriors".
I once thought to myself that is we were not aware of what is was, the sounds of an ancient battlefield would provide the perfect symphony.