The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, written by Walter Benjamin, is a very interesting article focused on the reproduction of different art forms. The article first looks at different processes used to reproduce art, including founding and stamping by the Greeks. This allowed them to reproduce bronzes, terra cottas, and coins. The woodcut allowed graphic art to be mechanically reproducible. Engraving, etching, and lithography were also added to the list. Lithography was quickly replaced by photography. As Benjamin says, “...photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens. Since the eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw, the process of pictorial reproduction was accelerated so enormously that it could keep pace with speech” (98). Photography essentially foreshadowed the sound film. The refining of one art form led to the creation of another. The article then looks at the repercussions the reproduction of works of art and the art of film have had on art in its traditional sense.

Benjamin writes that, “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be” (98). Anyone looking at a reproduction or duplicate of a work of art is viewing it in a totally different time and space from the artist and the original viewers. Its meaning could be changed drastically as a result. For example, the statue of Venus was made an object of veneration by the Greeks, but viewed as an ominous idol by the clerics of the Middle Ages. It was the same statue, but it faced two very opposing interpretations. As a musician, this is an intriguing thought to me. Because I am a classically trained pianist and dabble into the world of composition very rarely, I play others' works ninety nine percent of the time. While pieces generally contain instruction left to little interpretation, like tempo and dynamics, much of the piece can be interpreted and played many different ways by many different pianists. Playing the Children's Corner suite in the year 2009 is putting the piece in a very different time than when it was composed in 1908. It means something different to me than it did to Claude Debussy.

Benjamin notes that, “During longs periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence” (99). Both historical circumstances and nature determine how a medium is perceived by humans. I think this notion is particularly relevant in today’s society. While it may be a stretch, children today are born practically knowing how to use a computer and an iPod. It’s simply human nature to use technology to perceive different art forms. As it is commonly said, one can find anything on the internet. You might not be able to make it the Louvre in your lifetime, but you will certainly be able to Google the exhibits in the Louvre and see them a foot away from your face. I can say with almost one hundred percent certainty that the artist of a painting never intended for the viewer to see their work via a million pixels on a screen. The work loses its authenticity when it’s not viewed in real life. Benjamin might say it loses its aura. Aura is defined as “the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be” (100). Mass reproduction of art forms gradually puts distance between the original work and its intent and the reproduction.

On one hand, I like mass reproduction of many art forms because it allows them to be seen, heard, and felt by many people across the globe. Ultimately though, I agree with Benjamin’s belief that the uniqueness of art is lost through reproduction of a particular work. It can be compared to the childhood game of telephone. As the message gets passed from person to person, it slowly changes. By the end, it’s often very different from when it started.