For this week I read Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” I was familiar with this essay because I had read part of it in my “Philosophy of Art” class last spring. Before I re-read it, I looked at my notes from when we discussed it in class, and I laughed when I saw one thing I had written: “an extremely dated Marxist interpretation.”
Benjamin’s essay is a well-planned argument in opposition to the mechanical reproduction of art. In his eyes, reproduction (by means of photography or film) cheapens an artwork’s aura. The lazy means of reproduction devalue the artistic process by eliminating the genius behind the work as well as destroying the history and authenticity of the original piece. Benjamin would hold a painting like Picasso’s Guernica in high regard. But to take a photograph of that painting and turn it into a poster available for purchase at Ikea is to ruin the art by turning it into commodity.
I agree with Benjamin in his opinion that the mass marketing of art does somehow cheapen the originals. Today, one might reason that it isn’t necessary to travel to MOMA when she could have the same “experience” by doing a Google Image search. Respect for art and/or the artist, respect for creativity, and respect for genius are all lost under these circumstances. At the same time, the access to reproductions has eliminated the “ritual function” in art. Before mechanical reproduction, viewers worshipped art. The one pro to mechanical reproduction that Benjamin mentions is that it frees viewers by “emanicpat[ing] the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual.”
To this point, I can accept and agree with Benjamin. It is the latter part of his essay (where he criticizes film) that I feel is “dated.” Although film had been firmly established by 1935 when Benjamin wrote his essay, I don’t think he had carefully evaluated filmmakers and directors as artists. He treats film as silly, simple, emotionally deprived movie making – not as art. I do recognize that such “film” exists – just take a look at the latest Hollywood exports playing at your local movie theater. However, film, like painting, literature, dance, and theatre, comes with a set of conventions that make it an Art form. And film doesn’t have to follow these conventions. Painters and other traditional artists break the rules all the time; innovation is part of what makes art ‘art.’
Had Benjamin considered Hitchcock’s attention to detail, symbolism, and craftsmanship, I think he would have changed his argument.
However, Benjamin is looking at film mostly from the actor’s point of view. In his eyes, film is inferior to theatre because he sees the film actor as being detached from his art – much like how the worker in the factory is detached from the fruits of his labor. In a film production, the actor is just one part in the assembly line. He feels the theatre actor is the better artist because he is playing to a crowd of living people and not to a machine: the camera.
Benjamin also suggests that the camera is responsible for robbing the film viewer of the “whole picture.” Camera angles, zooms, and cropped shots distort the truth or reality of what’s really going on in the making of the movie. But if camerawork is just a device to hide certain aspects of what is happening, what can we say of the theatre’s devices? What’s hiding behind the curtain? What are the characters doing off of the stage? What was character A doing while character B was on stage? As with film, theatre makes conscious choices about what the audiences can and will see.
One thing that audience members will definitely see in a theater production is a character. Benjamin feels that the stage actor is able to inhabit the character role so well that the audience no longer sees him as an actor, but as the true character. Film, on the other hand, is a commercial industry. Hollywood is especially guilty of turning actors not into characters, but into stars. The cult of celebrity ensures that people will go out to see the newest Catherine Zeta-Jones flick, but it doesn’t promise that people will remember her character’s name. Aside from making movies, Hollywood studios make images. They turn an actor into a star, and a star is a product. People will go to any movie, no matter how bad it is, as long as Jennifer Lopez is in it. Remember Gigli?
If I were able to talk to Benjamin today, I’d be curious to know if he would reconsider his criticism of film after brushing up on today’s film studies. I also wonder if he would more likely see films as art if he saw them as works of a director, and not as products by an actor? Or, would he maintain that all film is garbage because it’s not produced by the genius of one person? Film is collaborative, but it is born thanks to the inspiring vision of one person.
Posted by Kate Cielinski at February 6, 2005 3:14 PMExcellent discussion! Whenever I read Benjamin, I get inspired...his thinking is very deep and persuasive. Part of my interest in this essay is the discussion of how art became commodified, and how its commodification changes the very way we receive and process it. There is some liberating qualities to this historical shift -- the masses now have access to worldviews that the elites once had, etc. -- but at the same time the loss of "aura" signifies a loss of meaning. Consider what he says in the passages about habit and the loss of "contemplation" as a way of responding to art. Instead, we immediately critique it, which is also an interesting point. Anyway, I look forward to discussing this one with you -- it's complicated.
Posted by: Mike Arnzen at February 7, 2005 9:17 PM