Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
SITE FOR POSTING CLASS READING RESPONSES AS COMMENTS. FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON OTHER POSTS. History of Art, U.C. Berkeley. Instructor Sarah Hamill
FUR-LINED CUP, MERET OPPENHEIM, 1936
Students
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(17)
-
▼
January
(17)
- No title
- Minimalism: For Class 3/31
- Warhol and Pop: For Class 3/19
- Johns, Rauschenberg, Frank: For Class 3/17
- Abstract Expressionism: For Class 3/12
- Modernist Sculpture: For Class 3/5
- Surrealism and Gender: For Class 2/19
- Modernism and Mass Culture: For Class 3/3
- Modern Objects and Things: For Class 2/10
- Primitivism: For class 2/5
- Cezanne and after: For Class 2/3
- Impressionism and Science: For class 1/29
- Response #3
- Kathryn A. Tuma
- What is Analysis? For class 1/27
- Octave Tassaert’s ‘Ne fais pas la cruelle!’ (Don’t...
- Defining the Modern: for class January 22
-
▼
January
(17)
Danielle Beeve
ReplyDeleteHistory of Art R1B
Section 6
Walter Benjamin believes that “The whole sphere of authenticity eludes technological reproduction.” (297) He goes on to explain that the new capabilities that technological reproduction give to the original artworks, such as the ability to see a picture of some artwork that is very far away in your own home, “devalue the here and now of the artwork.” (298) I’m not quite sure what he means by this, but it seems to imply that the originality or authenticity of artwork is only able to preserved in the original piece if it is in its original setting, not copied and placed somewhere else for viewing.
Benjamin also describes an artwork’s aura, saying “what withers in the age of the technological reproducibility of the work of art is the latter’s aura.” (298) He later describes this aura as “A strange tissue of space and time: the unique apparition of a distance, however near it may be.” (298) It seems that for him, an aura is an important quality for an artwork to have and that it is decaying with the advent of technological reproducibility. He states the reasons for this decay as “the desire of the present-day masses to ‘get closer’ to things, and their equally passionate concern for overcoming each thing’s uniqueness by assimilating it as a reproduction.” (298) The wish for people to be able to view art in their homes or businesses is an example of their wish to “get closer” to artwork. He furthers his point by stating “Uniqueness and permanence are as closely entwined in [the image] as are transitoriness and repeatability in [illustrated magazines and newsreels].” (298) So basically reproducibility is the opposite of originality according to Benjamin, they cannot simultaneously exist in an artwork.
From Benjamin’s discussion of Greek art versus modern art in section VIII, it is apparent that he believes that our advanced technology has hindered art production rather than enhancing it. He states “The state of their technology compelled the Greeks to produce eternal values in their art…Undoubtedly, our position lies at the opposite pole from that of the Greeks.” (300-301) He criticizes the modern technology of film for “its capacity for improvement” (301) which was so lacking Greek art, especially in sculptures which once made were generally never improved upon.
Clement Greenberg defines a new term, Kitsch, as “a new cultural phenomenon that appeared in the industrial West: …popular, commercial art and literature with their chromeotypes, magazine covers, illustrations…Hollywood movies, etc.” (288). Kitsch is then akin to Benjamin’s technologically reproducible art, such as films, and Greenberg dislikes Kitsch in the same way that Benjamin dislikes films, for their ability to be so popular while they almost “wipe out” a previous form of culture or standard of artistic value. Greenberg describes Kitsch’s influence worldwide: “Another mass product of Western industrialism, it has gone on a triumphal tour of the world, crowding out and defacing native cultures in one colonial country after another, so that it is now by way of becoming a universal culture, the first universal culture ever beheld.” (290). Clearly, Greenberg disapproves of this mass adoration of Kitsch, preferring instead, like Benjamin, a culture who appreciates the old, classical, non-reproducible works of art.
Julia Herron
ReplyDeleteResponse Paper for 3/3
Benjamin begins with the claim that “the work of art has always been reproducible” (W. Benjamin, 20). This is an intrinsic property of anything human, but it does not apply directly to art. The Greeks had no way for reproducing their art, so they chose materials durable enough to survive for hundreds of years. From modern advancements, we developed lithographs, photographs, and film to capture the creation and existence of art. But even the most perfect reproduction cannot recreate the unique process and experience of art. Benjamin argues that a photograph of a painting is art, but the creation of the photograph is not art because it took no artist thought or intention to take the photograph. Likewise, a film of a great acting performance loses the experience of its creation because the actor performs for the camera, and not for an audience.
Although Benjamin concedes that reproduction makes art more accessible for the masses, he argues that reproduced art loses its unique qualities because there is not artistic process involved. Benjamin states that, “the work reproduced becomes the reproduction of a work designed for reproducibility” (W. Benjamin, 24). Art loses its authenticity when every person can own a print of a painting or hang a photograph on their wall.
Greenberg focuses more on the easily reproduced art of the Kitsch movement, calling the art “an integral part of our productive system in a way in which true culture could never be” (Greenberg, 13). According to Greenberg, reproducibility does not affect originality. A common art viewer will be in awe of a “great” piece of art, whether it was reproduced or not.
Jenny Zhang
ReplyDeleteHA R1B Section 6
Reading Response #8
Walter Benjamin regards technology in modern society as an ambiguous tool (in respect to the creation of art). In one aspect, technology has made reproduction of art easier than before. In the past, art could also be reproduced but always under the labor and hands of another artist. Modern technology has allowed art to be reproduced quicker via photography. This is because in the last century the larger and bourgeois population is demanding more contact with art. So there is a need for mass production whereas in the past art was considered a luxury that could only be afforded by the wealthy. This was a huge change because the usage of hands and human labor over long periods of time could be shortened to just a second click on a camera. This reproduced art could then be copied making mass production of art achievable and less expensive and available to common people. However, two main qualities of the original work are lacking in a copy versus its original. The original art is tied to history and authenticity. Specifically, this means that an artist’s original work is valued highly because it is authentic (one of a kind) and contains a history of ownership. According to Benjamin, the reproduced art has a tendency of being labeled as a fake and creates a “negative theology” of “pure art” (299). This makes sense because an artwork is a visual expression of the artist thoughts and is noted by his technique and labor. Furthermore, art was first associated with religious practice. For example, baroque art in the middle ages was used to glorify Christianity and its characters. Egyptian art was meant to pay ritual to the gods. Although now a days, art is less associated with a religious cult; it does have the tradition of being passed around from one generation to another, the history behind its ownership increases the value of art. A copy is only provides a visual of the original but it was never addressed if the copy is also considered art. Photography is only one the new ways of reproducing art via modern technology. The introduction of cinematography allowed for a way to copy stage acting. Unlike in the original stage acting, in which the actor/ress performs in front of a live audience who is composed mostly of the wealthy (who could afford the entry), films have the actress performing in front of machinery and their work is always cut and edited to produce the final version. In the same sense, films are copies that are meant to reach a larger and bourgeois audience.
Clement Greenberg’s essay on Avant-Garde and Kitsch offers a deeper argument on the two classes of modern art that are appreciated by two different classes of people. Like Benjamin, Greenberg believes that modernization has increased the common population’s demand for art, but the quality of art they receive is lower than that experienced by the wealthy class. Both believe that art should be an individual instead of mass experience. Greenberg mentions in his essay that avant-garde artists/poets retreat from the public and immerse themselves in the pure creation of art instead of what they are painting. This approach to art is due to pursuit of an absolute quality or character in art. The Kitsch art is described as a product of mass industrialization and its style and subject are unstable versus avant-garde’s absoluteness. It is an alternative to avant-garde art for the common people who, unlike their wealthier counter-parts, do not have the time to analyze and learn to appreciate art’s abstractness. Both Greenberg and Benjamin see that because copies or Kitsch art can reach a greater audience, it is often linked with political significance. Greenberg particularly points out that Kitsch art is used for government propaganda. Also in his essay, Greenberg shows that he is not afraid to deliver his condescending feelings towards Kitsch art and the common people who enjoy it. He also says that formal cultured art has and will always belong to the power minority of society. Benjamin’s view point on mass production of art is not as negative as Greenberg’s.
Brendan Cronshaw
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
Response 8
3.2.09
Walter Benjamin makes it clear that “The whole sphere of authenticity eludes technological—and of course not only technological—reproduction” (p297), allowing us to understand that despite the advances in technological reproduction, for the most part art is able to retain its authenticity, even if only in a narrowed sense. However he qualifies this statement by saying that “But whereas the authentic work retains its full authority in the face of a reproduction made by hand, which it generally brands a forgery, this is not the case with technological reproduction” (p297) as well as “technological reproduction can place the copy of the original in situations which the original itself cannot attain” (p297).
The idea of the authority and authenticity of a work of art being grounded in its “here and now” (p297), is one that never really occurred to me minus the fact that one has to physically go to certain places, museums etcetera to see the actual work. One such example of the stark difference, not necessarily in color, but rather in physical appearance of a painting, is the Mona Lisa. Everyone who has seen it is stunned and surprised by how small it is when viewed firsthand. Images of it on the Internet and in textbooks show us the subject of the painting, the lines, forms and colors, but what they fail to reveal and make clear, due in part to the physical limitations of technological reproduction, is its size.
Right here in fact we have an example of how “how technological reproduction can place the copy of the original in situations which the original itself cannot attain”, the Internet and photographs make the Mona Lisa massively more popular and famous than if it we merely left in its singular, painted form. Benjamin from here argues that reproducing art makes it lose its authenticity in the sense that no actually work goes into these new creations. Nowadays, we can simply press a button and make a copy of something or do the same and capture it in digital or film form via a camera or camcorder.
Plainly said, Walter Benjamin argues that although works of art, especially paintings and texts are easily reproducible in this day and age, they are able to retain some of their authenticity in their “here and now” (p297) and the fact that most of these reproduced and copied works still exist. However one exception he mentions is that “Film is the first art form whose artistic character is entirely determined by its reproducibility” (p301). This makes sense in that a film does not have a true “here and now” and is rather manufactured in mass quantity and let loose upon the masses for their enjoyment. And this is where Clement Greenberg shares his disgust. His definition of Kitsch, “popular, commercial art and literature with their chromeotypes, magazine covers, illustrations, ads, slick and pulp fiction…etc” (p288) and the notion that it “appeared in the industrial West” (p288) gives in to the idea as divulged by Benjamin that reproduced and massively manufactured works of art lose integrity, meaning and importance, as well as authenticity.
Ieshia Sheppard
ReplyDeleteWalter Benjamin embraces a gratifying attitude toward technology. His main argument is that the technological reproduction of artwork is beneficial in that it has the ability to modify the effects of an original subject. Benjamin begins his text by ultimately declaring that all man-made objects can be reproduced—he uses the instances of written language being typed and artwork being manually replicated through the use woodcuts. Benjamin furthers his argument that the technological reproduction of art is beneficial by stating how handmade reproductions are analogous to forgery whereas technological reproduction stands independently of the original work, (297). Benjamin uses photography as his main support factor to help explain the benefits of technological reproduction; he declares that photography can bring out aspects of the original that are accessible only to the lens but not the human eye. Benjamin believes that these recorded images escape natural optics altogether. In this way, Benjamin supports his claim that the technological reproduction of artwork is beneficial, given that it provides new perspectives for its viewer.
Benjamin conclusively compares to Clement Greenberg in that Greenberg did not support the notion of technological reproduction in the way that Benjamin did. Greenberg, on the other hand, opposes the idea of replication as he declares that the reproduction of artwork has many constraints and is therefore impersonal. Greenberg concludes that the reproduction of artwork is a general agreement with limitations on what is good versus bad, (290). Greenberg, in turn, embraces the notion of abstract art as he holds the belief that it can not be replicated because it did not have an exact presentational purpose; he believes that abstract art was very personal. Greenberg went as far as naming and praising a few artists for the wide personal inspiration; among those that he named included: Picasso, Braque, Matisse, and Cezanne. Greenberg identifies technological replication as a deceptive force that causes “ambitious artists to modify their work,” (289); he defines it as an investment. Similar to the way in which Benjamin categorizes handmade replication as forgery, Greenberg classifies technological replications solely as artificial.
Walter Benjamin presents his argument on how reproducing artworks with technology changes their value. There are nineteen points that Benjamin brings up to explain his view. He calls upon film and photography as major examples of technology, while also using historical and cultural references.
ReplyDeleteTechnological reproduction is separated from the actual manipulation of material. Artists create an artwork only once in a specific time and surrounding. Its replication could be in the same physical surrounding, but with passing time the surrounding does not have the same "aura." With the mass reproduction of a specific artwork or style, the creation of the original artwork cannot be captured. Its authenticity is compromised.
Benjamin shows how and why artwork was reproduced (or not). Before technology made it easy to reproduce artwork, the Greeks made "everlasting" sculptures. Now, with the click of a button, a photograph can replicate anything. The ease of reproducing an artwork has evolved with the perception of art. Art was first used to indicate rituals of the magical realm, and then moved to a religious one. These less observed art had a purpose different from today. This is cult value, whereas today art has more commercial purpose (exhibition value) with the advanced in technology.
Clement Greenberg argument is split into four sections. The passage speaks of how artwork of the same time and surrounding can be very different. Greenberg shows that the unique environment of an original artwork can yield many and different results. Benjamin, on the other hand, did not mention the uniqueness of different artists in the same time and space. Greenberg's shows the appearance of and how avante-gard culture seeped into society, despite having no intention to. He also outlines "Kitsch," which is comparable to Benjamin's argument about how art has become a popular and commercial item. Both Greenberg and Benjamin agree that in today's society, it is more about the art itself, than its creation and intention.
Michael Dreibelbis
ReplyDeleteHOAR1B
Response Essay 7
In Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility”, Benjamin discusses works of art versus their reproduced counterparts. Benjamin brings up the many differences that the two have (authentic made and reproduced) and how each of them brings its own aspect to art as a whole. One downside that Benjamin discusses of the reproduced arts is that it lacks
a “unique existence in a particular place”. He goes on to say that this can be viewed as a positive or a negative thing because despite that reproductions not being tied to a particular space, they allow for freedom of space. That is to say that they allow to be shown in a variety of places, which Benjamin discusses is not the case with the authentic version. He then goes on to make the point that the most positive thing about the reproductions is that they are allowed to come to the viewer, and not the viewer to them. This can also be seen as a good an bad thing because they might not have the same appeal or effect on a viewer in say a cathedral as the would in someone’s bathroom.
Benjamin then goes on to say how art has changed since being reproduced on a large scale. In previous times (Benjamin uses the Greek’s and sculpture as an example but the same could be said of other societies) art held a heavy ritualistic value that again was based on the location of it. The idea of mass production takes away from this ritualistic nature and is replaced (in Benjamin’s opinion) by politics.
Benjamin then goes on to talk about something that I think is particularly significant. When he discusses how the mass reproduction of art has changed the qualities that we notice most in a work. Benjamin talks about how the Greeks were not interested much in how a work could have been improved and merely appreciated the work for what it was. They were also limited in the mediums and materials in which they could create their art. This is not the case now, and Benjamin argues that we spend much more time on the improvement on the work than the ancient Greeks. His example of this is Chaplin’s A Woman of Paris, which used a large amount of reproducible film in the process of its production.
In tying this theme of how reproducibility has changed art to Greenberg’s essay, I would have to say that Benjamin argues that art is moving much closer to this idea of the Kitsch and that technology does not necessarily represent the avant-garde of art.
Landon Turner
ReplyDeleteWalter Benjamin, in his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility” says that art undergoes a transformation from ritual to politics as soon as the criterion of authenticity is in jeopardy. He thinks that reproducibility causes this decay of the idea of authenticity, because photographs can be reproduced flawlessly, creating identical copies. He mentions a time before the lithograph, the photograph, and film. The greeks were “compelled... to produce eternal values in their art” because they were all unique and could not be technologically reproduced. What then do more modern forms of art try to portray? His conversation of the change from theater to film helps answer this question. “The function of film is to train human beings in the apperceptions and reactions needed to deal with a vast apparatus whose role in their lives is expanding almost daily.”. This apparatus which Benjamin mentions is the camera, and the process of editing the film to extract the best cuts. Film, he says, has the unique ability to express the fairylike, the marvelous, and the supernatural. For the actor to stand in front of the camera, he suggests, is an imitation in an imitation. It is to preserve one's humanity in the face of “the apparatus”, and this demonstration is worth more than the audience the movie was created for. It seemed to me that he expressed concern on the future of movies, and that the capitalization and money making of movies was detracting from what he likes to call the “aura” of the art. He mentions that film capitalization “distorts and corrupts the original and justified interest of the masses in film.” He ends his essay with “Communism relies by politicizing art”. A bold statement, but an intersting theory. He mentions that war is art, and quotes a passage from Marinetti's manifesto. The manifesto claims that the horrors of war proves that society was not mature enough to make technology its organ, and was not sufficiently developed to master the elemental forces of society. Another attack on technology, referencing its most gruesome uses. He claims that communism needs to industrialize art, just as war does; and his reference to Marinetti points to the view that concern should be felt toward the future of art in conjunction with technology.
Clement Greenberg, in his essay “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” in “Perceptions and Judgements” also provides a foreboding warning of reproducable art. Early on in the essay, he defines Kitsch as commercial art. He spends great detail describing a russian peasant and his view toward art. Given the choice between Kitsch, which could be found in a magazine (his example is the western New Yorker) over the masterpieces of Picasso. Even told why the painting is better by his government, he says the peasant will still turn to the Kitsch, because of the way the two types of art are interpreted. The Kitsch can be looked at and immediately pleasure is derived, while in the abstract works of Picasso, reflection is necessary to obtain meaning. The peasant does not have the time in his busy life to become accustomed to the Picasso, and will revert to the Kitsch. “Where Picasso paints cause, Repin paints effect. He makes the claim that Kitsch strangles classical and abstract art, and it seems to me that he alludes to the claim that painting for cause is a nobler endeavor than art for effect. He also makes a similar claim to Greenburg. The political side of art relies with the Kitsch because “it is too difficult to inject effective propaganda into” the avant -guard. Thus government will favor Kitsch, and this removes resources for the avant-guard painter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFelby Chen
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
Section 6
In Walter Benjamin’s essay “Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility”, he discusses reproducibility and originality with an unfavorable attitude towards technology. Benjamin, after all, believes that technology will ruin the authenticity of art, as a perfect duplication of art will never look identical to or be the original work it is copied from. Benjamin also believes that “the whole social function of art is revolutionized” (Benjamin 256) as technology creeps its way in and has profound impact on art. Art moves from a ritualistic practice to one of politics, as one begins to use art in a sort of intentional, manipulative manner (Benjamin 257). With this revolution in art, art loses its absolute value of authenticity and forms a new one with a political ring of reproducibility and understanding. Reproduction, in any sense, even has its own distinctions, for “photograph[ing] a painting is one kind of reproduction, but photograph[ing] an action performed in a film studio is another” (Benjamin 301). Either way, the political essence exists. Benjamin claims that the public would learn much from these political art forms with respect to technology.
Clement Greenberg’s essay “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, with regards to Benjamin’s “Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility”, further discusses the political transformation of art in the age of its technological reproducibility in terms of the forms avant-garde and kitsch. Greenberg claims that avant-garde “keeps the culture moving” (Green berg 288), and focuses on its forms rather than on society, which avant-garde tries to move away from. However, this abstract form of art is often dependent on monetary support and patronage. Kitsch, on the other hand, is more direct and conveys its meanings immediately. With such accessibility to the form of kitsch, the political side of art emerges as the artwork begins to appeal to the public and masses, whether the artwork is created intentionally or not. Since the “identifications [of the kitsch form of art] is self-evident immediately and [is] without any effort on the part of the spectator” (Greenberg 291), art continues to lose its value and meaning as it is in the kitsch form of art. Either way, as avant-garde or kitsch, art will always have a political aspect to it as long as it is in its age of technological reproducibility, as artwork will always be used or produced in certain ways for different motives. No longer is art genuine and original; instead, reproducibility occurs and decays the beauty of authenticity.
Erik Narhi
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
3/3/09
Walter Benjamin argues that reproducibility contrasts with uniqueness, delivering an experience that is equal for all who view an object. As a result, this reproducible form of art becomes available to the masses. Such is the case in such medias as photography, wherein the skill element is removed, leaving only the composition. Benjamin argues that technology and this reproducibility take away from the element of originality and uniqueness in art. As he puts it, the art’s “aura” is removed when the originality of art is no longer existent.
This “aura” is described as a physical sensation experienced by viewing the real thing rather than a reproduced version. When an item is mass produced, the aura no longer exists. For example, if a photo of a pristine location were taken, viewers of this photograph could experience the visual phenomenon of it from far away. However, this distant representation loses the “aura” felt by one who is actually there. Aclear contrast is set up between such art as the Ancient Greeks had and modern reproducible art. As such, it is assumed that the Greek’s created art with aura and uniqueness—sculptures that showed evidence of painstaking hours and days of sweat and blood put into the creation of carved masterpieces. On the contrary, the modern art has no element of challenge to Benjamin-it is the matter of pressing a button to start a press or clicking the button of a camera to take a photograph. In turn, these simple acts become works of art not for their pleasing and awe-inspiring appearances, but instead for the shock that they force upon the viewer.
While Benjamin clearly differentiates the affects of art in its original and reproduced forms, Greenberg argues that art is equally affective, reproduced or not. He contrasts Benjamin’s appeal by pointing out the fact that art remains the same visually whether it is original or not. As such, a truly great work can withstand endless reproduction without loss of value, a sharp contrast to Benjamin’s view on the role of reproducibility.
Walter Benjamin begins his article by addressing the modifying effect on reproducing original art. His essay focuses on this reproduction and the art of film, as well as their impact on the traditional form of art. Benjamin states that, “In even the most perfect reproduction, one thing is lacking: the here and now of the work of art- its unique existence in a particular place.”(21) What he means by this is a work’s “authenticity”. This is the core of the work, which is intimately connected to physical presence as well as historical or social context. He goes on to state that an authentic, original object is embedded in tradition, and the technology of reproduction removes this connection. But this tradition as a social function is undesirable to Bejamin, instead he feels art should be based on politics. The example of photography is introduced to portray the action of reproduction which is designed for reproduction, as opposed to reproduction of original works. Next, Benjamin distinguishes between “cult value” and “exhibition value”.(25) For a work of “cult value”, “What matters is that the spirits see it.”(25) In other words the cult value is art for the sake of art, while “exhibition value” is concerned with display of the highest degree. Today, Benjamin believes our society has undergone a shift of value which now places emphasis on exhibitory value. This shift is most catered to by the introduction of film, which brings with it a change in the function of art. The function of film as Benjamin explains it is profound. He believes that film functions as a vehicle for adaptation in regards to the technological “apparatus” which would otherwise enslave humanity. (26) By learning from film, we can better use the technology in a liberating fashion. Yet, still, Benjamin believes film is not art. On passage X, he demonstrates how we are forced to relinquish our humanity in the face of the “apparatus” or the machine, and then draws the parallel to that of actors in front of the camera. The effect of viewing a movie, then, inspires the masses to courageously preserve that what makes them human, just like the actors who place the “apparatus in the service of his triumph.”(31) Additionally, the audience is placed in a powerful and unique position of “quasi-expert”, and they are essentially the critics of a performance far removed from them. (33)
ReplyDeleteThis attitude towards film depicts Benjamin’s attitude towards technology and reproducibility. In short, he acknowledges potentials in technology to create a profound effect on society, and believes artistic design should be made with the intention of reproducibility.
A direct comparison can be made between Benjamin and Greenberg. Although Benjamin neglects to specifically reference avant-garde culture, his essay allude to, and are based on this. In other words, Greenberg’s description of avant-garde to break free from Alexandrianism, is accounted for in Benjamin’s glorification of art as it becomes less cult-like, and more exhibitory. In regard to Benjamin’s view of film, I think it can best be described as a splicing of avant-garde and kitsch. This is because the process of making film is in a sense avant-garde because it seeks new directions. It is simultaneously aware of culture, and also functions to move it as well. In another sense, film is kitsch because of its appeal to the masses. Sure film, like painting will form a hierarchy, yet all film can essentially be appreciated to some extent by everyone.
Bing Lin
ReplyDeleteSection 6
Walter Benjamin, in his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media,” discusses the role of technological reproduction in art and presents a negative opinion of the use of technology in the production and reproduction of art. He states clearly that “in even the most perfect reproduction, one thing is lacking: the here and now of the work of art – its unique existence in a particular place.” (297). This statement implies that though reproductions can copy a piece of artwork in its entirety physically, it cannot capture the “aura”, which is everything about that exact moment that the artist chose to lay down his brush and paint. Reproductions only copy what is finished, it cannot show the process, the history of the artwork as the original can.
Benjamin also expresses that the invent of technology causes the decaying of tradition and context that is originally embedded in a piece of artwork, as technological reproductions is able to take a painting, say a cave ritualistic painting, from its natural and historical context, the cave and the religious meanings behind the painting process, to the black and white pages of a history text book in modern times. He argues that although the physical and final product looks identical to the original cave painting, the essence and original meaning of the traditions in the painting have been lost.
Technological advances have also allowed room for improvement and changes to a piece of artwork; a factor that Benjamin believes actually negatively impacted the modern production process of art. Benjamin states that because of the lack of technological availabilities and skills compared to the modern state, the Greeks produced works that were meant to last for an eternity, and nothing was replicated or reproduced except for terra cotta, bronzes, or coins. This meant that right from the get go, the Greeks produced artworks that were worthy of being eternal, setting a standard for the current fine arts that has not been surpassed. Modern art is the exact opposite, predominantly with film being able to be shot and reshot, achieving a final product that, as Benjamin explains, “is the exact antithesis of a work created at a single stroke.” (301).
Clement Greenberg, in his essay, discusses the “kitsch”, which is Benjamin’s technologically reproduced art, both aimed to allow the masses to view and experience the art that usually only the higher class are able to see. Greenberg’s tone also mirrors that of Benjamin’s, criticizing the kitsch in that while it does make art more accessible to the masses, it provides a limited quality of the artwork, stripped of its aura. He goes so far as to call the avant-garde culture the “imitation of imitating”, plunging the artwork of the avant-garde, the kitsch, into mere imitations of high society, which themselves are just higher quality imitations of the original or another high end imitation. In this statement, Greenberg reveals the shared sentiment between Benjamin and him, that of technological reproductions failing to replicate the aura and value of the original artworks of true culture.