The aura of an original work of art consumes the viewer whole. It could be a different feeling for different people, but it is a feeling that “withers in the age of mechanical reproduction.” (Benjamin 221)[1]. In the Met, one can see the Picasso painting La Douleur. It is a controversial painting because it depicts a woman giving oral sex to a young man with his hands crossed behind his back. In the description of the painting, it mentions that Picasso thought it was terrible and merely a joke between friends. However, just the fact that it was hung in a gallery gave it a reason to be contemplated. The woman is bony, blue, and corpse-like, slumped over an orange, triumphant boy. Those colors, the position of the two subjects still evokes a feeling despite the “joke” it might have been when Picasso painted it (in my case, sadness and deep pity for the woman with dead features and disgust at the snarky boy). Because it occupies a different time and place, it produced perhaps a different aura. Just a copy of the painting or even the same painting in a different setting might not convey the same emotions felt as in the museum or the same emotions as with Picasso and his friends, since it is “lacking… its presence in time and space.” (Benjamin 220)[2]. There is a different context, as with Greeks’ religious reverence towards a statue of Venus that was such an “ominous idol” for churchmen in the Middle Ages (Benjamin 223)[3].
Where and how a work of art is viewed affects its aura. The presence of music at a live concert is different than in recording, and the presence of a movie is different when seen in a crowded theater than on DVD. However, the Internet is redefining media a redefining the aura. Television used to be something the whole family sat around to watch, but the Internet is changing television and film. Movies and TV shows can be watched on a computer, which is a solitary machine. It is called a “personal computer” for a reason. However, that is not to say that watching a film or television show online lacks an aura. Youtube videos in particular, an almost mutant version of television, are in the process of developing their own separate meaning as media. Youtube videos, which can come from anyone with little to no cost, are interesting in the discussion of the money-machine of the “culture industry.”[4] Internet viewings are so new that the culture industry is finding a way to engulf it in its machine, but at the same time it is attempting to create its own aura. The monitor is closer to one’s eyes than a television or movie screen. A user peers into the screen and sees actions that they do being reflected simultaneously. The user themselves is reflected in the screen, as if it is a mirror. Benjamin describes the aura of an actor before the pseudo-mirror of a camera (Benjamin 230)[5], but humans are developing the feeling of aura when consuming media through the pseudo-mirror of a computer screen. Fischer is on to something when she says “the constant striving of humanity for presence of the aura is a decisive moment for the perception.”[6] Humanity creates the aura, not the work itself. The aura is not dead, nor is it “withering” (Benjamin 221)[7]. It is evolving.
Fischer, Annemarie. "Cyber-Aura and Cyber-Industry." Web log post. Globalmedianarratives. Blogger, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 21 Feb. 2011. .
[1] Benjamin, Walter, and Hannah Arendt. Illuminations. New York: Schocken, 2007. Print.
[2] Benjamin, Walter, and Hannah Arendt. Illuminations. New York: Schocken, 2007. Print.
[3] Benjamin, Walter, and Hannah Arendt. Illuminations. New York: Schocken, 2007. Print.
[4] Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception." Dialectic of Enlightenment. [New York]: Herder and Herder, 1972. 94-137. Print.
[5] Benjamin, Walter, and Hannah Arendt. Illuminations. New York: Schocken, 2007. Print.
[6] Fischer, Annemarie. "Cyber-Aura and Cyber-Industry." Web log post. Globalmedianarratives. Blogger, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 21 Feb. 2011. .
[7] Benjamin, Walter, and Hannah Arendt. Illuminations. New York: Schocken, 2007. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment