Friday, October 24, 2003
Responce to "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction":
Benjamin ideas are clear and concise, especially in his arguments. They follow the rules of an argument which include the premises and conclusions. Clearly his arguments are valid (follow proper structure) but they are not really convincing, in my eyes. The arguments are not very sound (the premises are true and the conclusion is true). For example, Benjamin argues about how the aura of a work of art (let’s say acting) is lost or diminished when it is mechanically reproduced “…and this is the effect of film--man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgetting it’s aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it” (http://webct.yorku.ca/SCRIPT/2003_AS_HUMA_Y_1650__9_A_EN_A_LECT_01/scripts/serve_home) When the film industry creates movies, the actors are not presenting for the audience; they are presenting for the camera. Benjamin is therefore assuming that the aura of the actor cannot be caught or contained by mechanical objects such as a camera. In comparison, we can use this statement with the idea of painting. If any mechanical object cannot catch someone’s aura then a painting cannot catch an aura either. Benjamin would be assuming that all things have an aura, which might not match with other's beliefs. One might assume that only people or 'living' elements have an aura. I use the term living in quotes because it is a debatable term. Benjamin states, “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” (http://webct.yorku.ca/SCRIPT/2003_AS_HUMA_Y_1650__9_A_EN_A_LECT_01/scripts/serve_home) Therefore if we were to assume that authenticity constitutes as the aura, then we can safely say Benjamin has just contradicted himself. An original painting has an aura (according to Benjamin), but it is also a mechanical object. If you do not believe that a paint brush, used to create a painting, is mechanical then you might ask “what then constitutes as a mechanical object?” According to the scientific point of view, something that is mechanical is something that "of or pertaining to a machine or to machinery or tools; made or formed by a machine or with tools; as, mechanical precision; mechanical products" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mechanical). Therefore a paintbrush can be safely classified as a mechanical object.
Benjamin does not specify his ideas in this topic about what he considers a mechanical object. Therefore it is safe to assume, with regard to his arguments in this article, that he believes a mechanical object is something that can reproduce objects (paintings etc) without human help (except to start and stop). That a mechanical object is a piece of technology. In my view, mechanical object is more than just something that can make replications of something without human aid. For example, would you consider a can opener to be a mechanical object? I would. Benjamin's article only seems to make reference to mechanical objects of this age rather than to all pieces of machinery ever created.
Lastly, Benjamin states, "One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition". (http://mystifly.fes.yorku.ca/)Benjamin mentions tradition in a way that seem to suggest that tradition is the path that we should follow. Today's tradition is quite different from the traditions of the past and therefore can we really classify reproduced objects outside of the domain of tradition? Today's tradition seems to be "if you want something, get a copy of it". It is not cost effective to get a real copy of a painting, especially if the original painter is dead.
Benjamin ideas are clear and concise, especially in his arguments. They follow the rules of an argument which include the premises and conclusions. Clearly his arguments are valid (follow proper structure) but they are not really convincing, in my eyes. The arguments are not very sound (the premises are true and the conclusion is true). For example, Benjamin argues about how the aura of a work of art (let’s say acting) is lost or diminished when it is mechanically reproduced “…and this is the effect of film--man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgetting it’s aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it” (http://webct.yorku.ca/SCRIPT/2003_AS_HUMA_Y_1650__9_A_EN_A_LECT_01/scripts/serve_home) When the film industry creates movies, the actors are not presenting for the audience; they are presenting for the camera. Benjamin is therefore assuming that the aura of the actor cannot be caught or contained by mechanical objects such as a camera. In comparison, we can use this statement with the idea of painting. If any mechanical object cannot catch someone’s aura then a painting cannot catch an aura either. Benjamin would be assuming that all things have an aura, which might not match with other's beliefs. One might assume that only people or 'living' elements have an aura. I use the term living in quotes because it is a debatable term. Benjamin states, “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” (http://webct.yorku.ca/SCRIPT/2003_AS_HUMA_Y_1650__9_A_EN_A_LECT_01/scripts/serve_home) Therefore if we were to assume that authenticity constitutes as the aura, then we can safely say Benjamin has just contradicted himself. An original painting has an aura (according to Benjamin), but it is also a mechanical object. If you do not believe that a paint brush, used to create a painting, is mechanical then you might ask “what then constitutes as a mechanical object?” According to the scientific point of view, something that is mechanical is something that "of or pertaining to a machine or to machinery or tools; made or formed by a machine or with tools; as, mechanical precision; mechanical products" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mechanical). Therefore a paintbrush can be safely classified as a mechanical object.
Benjamin does not specify his ideas in this topic about what he considers a mechanical object. Therefore it is safe to assume, with regard to his arguments in this article, that he believes a mechanical object is something that can reproduce objects (paintings etc) without human help (except to start and stop). That a mechanical object is a piece of technology. In my view, mechanical object is more than just something that can make replications of something without human aid. For example, would you consider a can opener to be a mechanical object? I would. Benjamin's article only seems to make reference to mechanical objects of this age rather than to all pieces of machinery ever created.
Lastly, Benjamin states, "One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition". (http://mystifly.fes.yorku.ca/)Benjamin mentions tradition in a way that seem to suggest that tradition is the path that we should follow. Today's tradition is quite different from the traditions of the past and therefore can we really classify reproduced objects outside of the domain of tradition? Today's tradition seems to be "if you want something, get a copy of it". It is not cost effective to get a real copy of a painting, especially if the original painter is dead.
