24th of June 2019
Modernism – The Photograph Itself
Read Walter Benjamin’s essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ in Evans & Hall (1999) Visual Culture: The Reader (also available online).
What do you think about Benjamin’s Viewpoint? And Kracauer’s?
Modernism paved the way for complete change in many aspects, like in literature, architecture, and in art. It is not based on one characteristic but covers a range of contributing ideas. Following the Second World War, there become a universal need for ‘healing’. People believed this could be achieve by a new outlook, this manifested in at first a change to the design of basic items like clothing. It induced a utopian feeling. This then moved into the art world. One aspect of modernism is nihilism, which rejects moral and religious doctrines. So basically a completely new tradition that anything before. Artists would experiment with new materials and techniques, in an aim to explore form. Modernism promoted a new world view, one which was simple and uncomplicated, the perfect world, a utopia.
Benjamin starts by stating that “a work of art has always been reproducible” (Benjamin, p. 72). This is true, nowadays it is common to see images of a piece of art everywhere from a book, to on the television, and especially on the internet. Images tend to be copied to share around the world, even images of cave paintings are widespread, but art in the form of artefacts or idols are slightly more difficult to replicate. Reproduction has always gone on, but it has taken different forms. Painters would practice by copying their mentors work. Over time, it has taken forms in engravings to lithographs to printing and now photography. By the twentieth century, it has been possible to reproduce all available pieces of art. This method itself has also managed to have a hold in the artist’s process.
According to Benjamin, these reproductions have one main fault. They lack presence. They can not replicate the originals authenticity and presence. “The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (Benjamin, p. 74). Perception has also changed over time. For example in the art from the fifth century was very different from art that came before, this was brought about by a different type of perception. Traditions changed. These traditions aid in the artworks ability to be unique.
At the beginning art tended to be for ritual purposes. These took two forms, the first being magic, the second being religion. These roots can be found in artwork today, they come from a tradition, which hasn’t completely vanished. To successfully analysis art, in light of reproduction, you need to be aware of these traditions. Mechanical reproduction has allowed art to be liberated from its roots. It is not depend anymore. The art is also now destined to be reproduced, it is inevitable.
The value of art is variable. On one hand is has cult value, on the other is has exhibition value. Today it is more common for art to hold a value for exhibition. Photography is a good example of this. This is also seen in film. Film is able to produce two representations, one in how the person is presented and second, how, due to the mechanical equipment, the person can embody the environment. Photography can show what we cannot see.
Benjamin believes art has an aura, which is linked to its ritual purpose. But this aura is diminished the more it is reproduced mechanically and the more it is looked at out of context. As I said earlier, our perception changes, our culture and social changes also alter our perception, this is why the exhibition value holds more stead. The exhibition value over time becomes more important that the artworks aura. Whilst by mechanical reproduction, art can be reproduced, these reproductions lack the authenticity of the original, it lacks the presence of the original, but it also has created something new. The more a piece is reproduced, the more it’s aura is chipped away. Photography does not have the same aura that is able to be diminished.
Not everyone agrees with Benjamin’s view. Some believe that mechanical reproduction strengthens the aura by preserving it, for example Mary Warner Marian I one who holds this belief. I agree with Benjamin that the more reproductions that are made, causes a decreases in the artworks presence. It places a different value on these reproductions. But I do not think that is does distract from the original. We all know that the reproductions are just that, they are copies of the original, whilst they do not process the originals authenticity, they give us a chance to see it p, they are available worldwide to all, but they do not have the wow factor that the original has. There is a different feel from seeing an original to seeing a copy. The problem is that if you see a copy of the original, are you going to go and see the original, for the majority, the answer is probably no. So it does have an effect on the originals, but in today mechanical reproductions are so common, we see them all the time but we don’t really take much notice.
Siegfried Kracauer believes that the more we become familiar with an object, over time it loses its authenticity and originality. He makes a point that memory can be effected by things like camera, which capture a scene. I believe he has a point, whilst photographs have the ability to trigger a memory, they also do not promote us remembering the exact event, as people’s recollection varies. Often photographs are becoming our memories, we do not need to remember because we have it on film (Kracauer. p. 58). Sigmund Freud commented on memory and issues that surround it. He cited two types of memories, natural and artificial. A photograph would count as artificial memory. In his essay, ‘Civilization and its Discontents’, he states, “In the photographic camera he has created an instrument which retains the fleeting visual impressions, just as a gramophone disc retains the equally fleeting auditory ones; both are at bottom materializations of the power he possessed of recollection, his memory” (Freud (1930), cited in Bate (2010). This is similar to the point Benjamin made about the camera capturing the unseen things. Freud’s essay was published in 1930, whereas Benjamin’s was published in 1931, so only a year apart. Photographs can aid in memory and at the same time contribute to its destruction.
Bibliography
Bate, D. (2010) ‘The Memory of Photography’ In: Taylor & Francis Online. 6th of September 2010. [Online]. At: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17540763.2010.499609 (Accessed on 17th June 2019).
Benjamin, W. (2007) ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’ In: Evans & Hall (ed.) Visual Culture: A Reader. London: Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 72-79.
Kracauer, S. (1995) The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays. London: Harvard University Press. p. 58.
Marien, M. W. (2006). Photography: A Cultural History (2nd edn). London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. pp. 302.
MDC. History of Modernism. At: https://www.mdc.edu/wolf son/Academic/ArtsLetters/art_philosophy/Humanities/history_of_modernism.htm (Accessed on 19th of June 2019).
Tate. Art Term – Modernism. At: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/m/modernism (Accessed on: 19th of June 2019).
V&A. What was Modernism? At: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/what-was-Modernism (Accessed on 19th of June 2019).
V&A. What is Postmodernism? At: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/what-is-postmodernism (Accessed on 19th of June 2019).
Georgina's Contextual Studies 