Notes

Benjamin is attempting to derive an approach to the understanding of art that is useless for Fascism (in the sense of discourse). But rather, the theory of art should be useful for developing revolutionary aesthetics and values.

1

The work of art is always reproducible, at least in principle. Mechanical reproduction enables this to a dramatically increased extent. Reproduction itself has a history originating in stamping and extending through woodcuts, to lithography, to finally photography and film. The emergence of these technologies enabled two things: 1) the ability to “reproduce all transmitted works of art”, and 2) to become legitimate in their own artistic process.

That first point is made very quickly and is a very dangerous statement. Benjamin might be meaning something more limited than it sounds, but it makes the ground a little shaky.

2

Reproductions are different from the originals in that the original has a presence in time and space. It also contains a history (one might say a cultural capital), which cannot be copied. (Although it could be emulated or referenced…)

A curious bit here: Manual reproductions were considered forgeries, and these allowed the original work to preserve its authority, but the process and culture of forgery seems more curious than that, further, a really *good* forgery might have the quality of confusing experts, and this blurs and confuses the attribution of authenticity.

Technical reproductions are different in that they tend to enable more to be derived from the original work. For example, photographic enlargement or slow motion film. “…technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself.” The mechanical reproduction also enables distribution for the beholder to access it easily, without requiring labor or effort (travel, or, in the case of kitsch, education).

The next point is the highly controversial one: “The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated.” This establishes the idea that the work of art is diminished by its reproduction, but there is a bit more subtlety going on. (And this ties strongly into Greenberg, later.) Namely, the value of the original is perceived as being less when confronted with the superiority of the mechanical reproduction. This point is still contestable, but follows directly from the previous.

The effect of reproduction is to detach the work of art from its tradition, and destroy the value of cultural heritage.

3

On the aura of natural objects: this is determined by proximity, how close one is to the object of attention. But, (in the case of the masses), there is a desire to get closer in proximity to the object, and failing direct access, that may be done via its reproduction. However, that destroys the uniqueness of the object.

Criticism can be made at this point of the role of uniqueness. After Barthes, one might say that uniqueness and meaning derive from the beholder, not from the object or its image.

4

Before the era of reproduction, art was dependent on a sort of ritual function. Later, with the rise of reproduction, art reacted with the idea of “art for the sake of art”. This idea was to deny the social function of art and ascribe to it a pure ritual or theology.

The function of mechanical reproduction is to liberate art from its dependence on ritual. Instead, art becomes art designed for reproducibility, which undermines the notion that authenticity might even exist. Thus, art begins to serve the function of politics.

5

Art operates in the service of functions. Originally, in the neolithic era, it was a function of magic and ritual, only later being termed art. The emphasis of the value of art leads to new functions, but these functions may be kept concealed.

6

Photography takes on a new set of functions and through a change in approach, takes on a new political significance. Specifically, Benjamin is looking at Atget who took photographs of deserted streets in Paris such that they looked like scenes of crime.

The fact that photography can take up political functions though, does not imply that other works cannot serve different functions than traditionally ascribed either. The significant change seems to be in referencing the work to another system of meaning (crime photography), rather than being an intrinsic property of photographs as reproducible.

7

In the early days of film, critics attempted to view film using logic of ritual.