Benjamin’s concept of aura, the importance of uniqueness, context, contemplation, and its subsequent downfall due to the mechanical reproduction age, is a concept that is elitist and rife with holes. In his article The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Representation, Benjamin argues that no matter how good a reproduction of a work of art is, it lacks the unique essence--the aura—the the original work of art had (220). While there certainly is some value in seeing an original piece, Benjamin totally misses the point when he describes the mediums of contemporary perception as the harbinger of the decay of aura. Benjamin believes that because a piece can be mass produced, and viewed anywhere at any time, that the viewer no longer gets the aura of the work of art (222). Benjamin believes that aura is something akin to a message sent from the sender, which can only be experienced by the viewer if he is viewing a piece of art in person.
Benjamin’s concept of aura is flawed. In class, Professor Fischer argued that humankind wants this aura; that they strive for it. Simply taking a piece out art out of its historical context by viewing a reproduction does not mean it is impossible for the viewer to have a unique experience in viewing it, nor does it impair his ability to contemplate its meaning. The weakness in the concept of aura is further displayed when we examine where aura comes from. Benjamin argues that aura comes from the sender; that he is trying to convey a message to the viewer. While this is often times true, the aura of a piece, in order to be a unique contemplation of a work of art, must come from the viewer. If the aura came from the sender, it would not be unique nor a contemplation of the work of art, but rather an exercise in examining the psyche of the artist. Benjamin says that both the Greeks who created a statue of Venus and the clerics of the middle ages both experienced, albeit a different one, a sense of aura from the statue (223). Why is it then impossible for someone viewing an art gallery online to experience their own aura?
I believe it is an elitist mindset that leads Benjamin to come to these conclusions. The idea that art is “high-brow”, that it must be viewed in its context, was used in the past as a way to make the elite who had access to the works of art to feel more important. How could the masses, the commoners, possibly understand the sophisticated messages of the artist? This concept is outdated, we no longer judge a persons’ cognitive ability based on their social status. Aura is created in a persons’ mind, regardless of how or where they view a piece of art. In truth, it could be even easier for a person to gain perspective, to experience the aura, of a work of art today by viewing it on the internet. By looking up a piece of art on the internet, a viewer can see that work of art, read about the artists background, read expert commentary on the piece of art, and view it next to other works of art from the same time period and genre. Art is timeless because it is open to interpretation and there’s no one correct interpretation of any work of art. The internet has not diluted the value of art, (and other forms of media, as many authors we have read in this class seem to believe) rather it has lead to a wider base of interpretation which is ultimately good for the popularity and longevity of a work of art.
Benjamin, Walter. (1968). Illuminations: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (pp. 220-223). New York, NY: Schocken Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment