“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” by Walter Benjamin
Oh how perfect that my next post is about originality.
On my last post, I briefly touched on the theory of originality. I stated that it is “a product/art piece/work/etc that is created with unique style or substance that is not copied or based on another’s work.” Keeping this definition in mind, it is a fair assumption to say that there are little to no original pieces of art in our time. We derive much of our “inspiration” from existing works – replication. According to Benjamin, all works of art can be replicated but the copies do not duplicate the original aura – the presence of time and space.
The aura is what gives us understanding of the “moment” of the art piece. Aura often implies authenticity (originality); however, we can’t have authenticity without replications. When art is mechanically reproduced, each replication is a decay of the aura. This begs the question, how important is aura? While we can photograph a mountain but not fully grasp the moment it is taken, does that make it any less beautiful? Should it be less appreciated because it is a replication rather than an “original?” Were all works of art appreciated because they weren’t mechanically reproduced? I think not.
Much of our current “art” is due to the evolution of technology. As such, our idea of art is changing alongside with our perceptions. We find ourselves redefining many areas of our lives but rarely ever come to a concrete definition. For example, gaming. Roger Ebert argued that games are not a form of art but many would argue otherwise. If anything, it is a unique form of art – interactive storytelling or advanced performance art. Although in consideration to Benjamin, is it a replication of a story/event/etc or is it original? Does it have an aura?
Despite Ebert and Benjamin, art has always been a subjective term as it is an interpretation of life. While it is agreeable that we lose the initial interpretation with replication (mechanical or not), the replications are artworks in itself and thus takes on the interpretation of the creator. This is consideration to modern forms of art such as mash ups and photo manipulations. While they are mechanical forms, it speaks to a different audience than that of Ebert and Benjamin – something that is often overlooked.
Benjamin says “The uniqueness of a work of art in inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. This tradition itself is thoroughly alive and extremely changeable.” I think this very much applies to your idea that art should still be appreciated even though it is not an “original.” The thing that sticks out to me here is that the uniqueness/ aura is inseparable from the “fabric of tradition,” meaning to me that different traditions surrounding the creation of a work of art can very much change the meaning. My point in this is that I think since the recreations of certain works of art have come from a very different traditional time in which the original work of art was created, the aura/ uniqueness of both can be extremely far apart. In which case they would both have credible artistic value just in a different form. Furthermore, you talk about our current art being due to the evolution of technology. I think that speaks volumes of the different traditions in a culture. Our technological traditions that we have today are very different than the traditions that our ancestors had a hundred years ago. I myself have been guilty of thinking that “today’s” art is less artistic than pieces created by Van Gogh. For me it is important to realize that because they were created in times with very different traditions, they just have very different artistic values.
Exactly! The problem with defining “art” is that its dependent on the beholder. With art, you have to have an open mind and take it as it is rather than what everyone thinks it should be and/or what you’re told. I thought Andy Warhol was a genius in this respect. He was so highly praised as an artist but he would paint the most random items. Of course I’m speaking on the “Campbell Soup Can” but if you look at the aftermath of the painting, it was so highly talked about. Then again a lot of that controversy was due to him already being established in the art community. Although from my perspective, status shouldn’t play a part in critiquing art.