When I first read Walter Benjamin’s 1936 essay entitled “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” I began to gain a much deeper understanding and appreciation for film and photography above all other traditional “fine art” forms. Benjamin, a Marxist and cultural critic, wanted to examine the implications of the introduction of mechanical reproducibility in the art world. He hypothesized what these new capabilities of mechanical reproduction would mean for art, culture, and the transformation of society.

          “…that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced. These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary crisis and renewal of mankind. Both processes are intimately connected with the contemporary mass movements. Their most powerful agent is the film.”

          Benjamin asserted that an original work of fine art, such as the Mona Lisa for example, had an “aura” due to it’s unique existence. There is only one Mona Lisa painting which has been touched by the artist himself and produced by the artist himself. A film teacher of mine once asked the class to imagine we were standing in a Museum, staring at an original art work. We were to imagine that the curator came into the room and said that we were actually staring at an exact replica of the original artwork. “Would you feel cheated out of your experience?” our teacher asked. “Are the original stirrings and emotions that staring at that replica aroused in you any less meaningful or valid?” Art with an “aura” of authority and uniqueness presents a problem for the masses. Fine art at the time, (before the explosion of mechanically reproduced images through photography and film), was and still is only accessible generally by means of museums and galleries. Traditional art with this “aura” was not produced with the capability of being shared among the masses, because it was produced as one original piece of work. As Benjamin points out, the introduction of mechanically reproduced images through the mediums of photography and film, shatter this tradition of aura and inaccessibility, rendering the idea of a unique existence obsolete. Films and photographs are meant and made to be reproduced, shared, and spread among the masses. There is no one special specific dvd copy of “Annie Hall” sitting on a movie house’s shelf, that Woody Allen himself attributed any sort of “aura” to.
          As a marxist, approaching history with a materialist dialectic, it is extremely important to examine what the introduction of new technologies and modes of production mean in the art realm for cultural shifts and societal transformations. The shattering of tradition that came about with the innovation of film and photography freed the idea of art from the confines of inaccessible museums and the “unique existence” and brought art out for the world to be shared and reproduced. With the death of “aura” surrounding art, new channels and avenues of the politicization of art can occur. The revolutionary potential of the motion picture has been utilized throughout the history of cinema, from Sergei Eisenstein to Jean-Luc Godard to the contemporary Ken Loach. This new blog will work towards opening a dialogue on the revolutionary potential of art, music, and film, while also bringing important theoretical texts of the past to the forefront to be re-examined. Feel free to comment, discuss, share, or open up new conversations on any topics that spark your interest.
Cheers!
-Kelly Gallagher