http://www.democracychronicles.com/how-modern-consumerism-has-changed-art-and-culture/
In Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility”, Benjamin discusses the mass reproduction of art and its effect on what Benjamin coined as the “aura” of the art itself in which the artwork’s presence in time and space is lost through the means of reproduction. The reproduction strips the artwork of its function as an individual unit.
Although Benjamin’s discourse focuses on art itself, using film and photography as his main examples, his analysis is applicable to the culture industry itself. Popular culture is created to function in the best interests of the economy. Everything is filtered by the culture industry. The selection mechanism as to what is authoritatively produced and distributed to the masses is contingent upon investment capital and those who control it. Traces of spontaneity are controlled due to the dependency upon such vast amount of capital in order to be widely distributed. Culture itself is manufactured. Consumers are classified, labeled and organized by the manufacturers who view them only as statistics in which more capital, money and power can be gained through further distribution of reproductive cultural entities. Benjamin begins his discourse with a quote that summarizes how innovation and technology have been constantly transforming culture. “Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose power of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours.” (Benjamin) The quote from Paul Valery alludes to the transformation of art due to technological breakthroughs that revolutionized the distribution and techniques of art itself. Access to art was severely limited due to technological constraints thus limiting art itself due to the cultural constraints that such confinement in terms of exposure caused. Benjamin’s discourse begins with a sense of optimism which deteriorates as the capitalist mode of production and its cultural effects are discussed. With such widespread reproduction of art and culture itself, the aura of the artwork itself is lost along the way as what is considered to be art becomes disillusioned amongst widespread reproduction with alternate motives. Through the capitalist mode of production art becomes intended to suit capitalist interests rather than being a unique form of individual expression. Benjamin states that such conditions of mass production “neutralized a number of traditional concepts-such as creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery.” (Benjamin) Benjamin goes on to quote Paul Valery once again in the first part of his discourse, stating that auditory and visual images became marginalized to something hardly more than a sign.
The aura of an artwork is lost during reproduction. It loses its “unique existence in a particular place”(pg.1053, Benjamin). The copying of the artwork detaches its essence from the artist and loses that personal connection. Famous artist Pablo Picasso said that “Art is a form of magic designed as a mediator between this strange hostile world and us.” Most recently in our culture technological innovations have distorted art and disrupted the function that art serves as a mediator in understanding the World we live in. “By replicating the work many times over it substitutes mass existence for a unique existence” (pg.1054, Benjamin). Technological innovations have led to the emergence of new art forms such as film and photography. In doing so traditional concepts of art have been overthrown and production has overflowed the cultural filter so that art as a form itself loses its own aura. The traditional concept of the definition of art is transformed by such technological reproduction but at the cost of its essence. Art was becoming so reproduced that it took on different goals and approaches such as dadaism’s attempt at counter culture which eventually was culminated with the surrealism movement. In a more modern sense art has been developed into so many forms of entertainment to the point in which the aura is so far removed that it lacks any artistic qualities or skills as technological advancements replace or remove these things. Due to the mass reproduction of art, art has transcended beyond its function as a specialized field of humanism for better or worse. Quality has been sacrificed for quantity as mass reproductions of imagery serve different functions without focusing on aesthetic representation in the form of beauty. Mass reproduction has outmoded the primary necessity for art to inhibit specialized techniques and training. Such exploitative motives ruin art and serve popular culture only as a means to reinforce elitism amongst the established power.
Benjamin cites egalitarianism as the ideological condition for the constant decay of art. Benjamin cites two circumstances, “the desire of the present day masses to “get closer” to things spatially and humanly, and their equally passionate concern for overcoming each thing’s uniqueness by assimilating it as a reproduction” (pg.1055, Benjamin) as reasons for the loss of the aura in question. Capitalist motives are the root for such ideologies to gain influence over the masses in order to fuel reproduction. Benjamin cites the phrase “l’art pour l’art” which means “art for art’s sake” which was a sentiment to preserve the aura as a reaction to the first revolutionary means of reproduction and many counter culture movements have emerged since then.
Benjamin’s discourse advocates a sense of optimism with the emergence of culture industry and its role in transforming art. Benjamin cites massive active participation as a positive aspect of technological reproduction. He refutes notions that popular culture is a form of escapism from the drudgery of capitalism that causes the masses to be docile and subservient to the elite. Benjamin argues that by advocating contemplation and absorption of such art forms, such art forms are gradually understood and mastered, in other words through dialectics. By constantly searching for truth and maintaining an open mind for resolutions between disagreements, the masses could transcend such seemingly destructive influences as popular culture.
Popular culture serves capitalist interests because of the industries that depend upon it for reproduction. Such industries are indebted to particular ideologies that were formed in order to preserve and further influence upon the masses. Popular culture is an authoritative outlet for such extensions of influence.
So, do you agree with Benjamin?
You summarise his argument very well, but I’d be interested to get more of an insight into what you make of this subject.
Personally, while I understand the link between the rise of technology and capitalism and the increased batch-production of art, I don’t think the former is necessarily the sole cause of the latter. In fact, it’s not.
We can easily look to artists like Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst and Takashi Murakami, and highlight the ways in which they utilise assistants and (in the case of the latter two) technology in order to batch produce artworks, but this isn’t necessarily a new thing in the art world. Artists like Rembrandt, Leonardo and Titian (among many others) all had assistants who carried out the majority of their works for them. That’s how artists were trained.
I find this quote rather interesting: “Through the capitalist mode of production art becomes intended to suit capitalist interests rather than being a unique form of individual expression.”
The thing that often gets overlooked is that ‘art’ as we see it today (this idea of individual expression) is a very modern concept – painters, sculptors and architects from the dawn of time were more like manual labourers than creative individuals. Artists painted what patrons paid them to paint – the riches of the art world in most cases originate in the desire to show off one’s wealth, whether in the public realm (churches) or the private. The fact that the majority of artists pre-1700 had workshops filled with assistants testifies to the fact that art has always been a money-making method, and batch production (whether numerous copies of one work in Warhol’s case, or the creation of many works at once in Murakami’s) has always facilitated this, whilst simultaneously serving as a training method for younger artists.
If anything, I think it is this opposition to the rise of capitalism and technology that may actually be seen as the catalyst for the idea of art as individual expression.
What do you think?
I think Benjamin was complaining about how the emergence of popular culture and its commercialization dictates individual expression whether the art is created in attempt to appease popular culture demands such as creating something to make money or in terms of marketing it to popular culture or a certain demographic. The counter culture movement in art may have incited individual expression as a reaction to industrialization and technology but, even these reactions are endemic to The Machine. I think what Benjamin was getting at was the disconnection between the artist and his work that technology and reproduction are creating.
How connected do you think the artist and his work should be?
I only ask because over the past year my research has led me to consider the artwork as an autonomous object, leaving the artist behind once it exits the studio. As someone who condones this view, I have to say I think technology and reproduction have probably had a positive impact.
However I do understand that it is still somewhat controversial to stand up and say, “I don’t care about the artist, just give me the art!”
I think film is a good example of how the work of art once out in popular culture can be used, mutilated, interpreted in different ways, etc…
For instance whenever there is a mass shooting, violence in film is often used as a scapegoat. The most notorious example is Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers”. The media often sensationalize reports of gun violence, profiting off of the fear and entertainment value such stories perpetuate. The Oliver Stone film “Natural Born Killers” provides satire on the sensationalist tendencies of the media. In the film a Media celebrity played by Robert Downey Jr. sensationalizes the main characters, a serial killer couple, as a means to build them up to a celebrity status in which the media profits. Rather than portray and report the suffering and pain induced by these serial killings, the media in the film glorify their actions. The couple gains a fanbase from such reporting and the inability of law enforcement to stop these individuals is mocked despite officer casualties. The media gives these murderers a public profile which invokes sympathy for them. As outlaws on the run the media profits off of the disapproval that exists in society for institutional flaws that are seemingly inept in stopping the serial killings in the film. Once the couple is caught the media continues to utilize the celebrity status of these criminals by giving them personal attention through interviews, glorifying and sensationalizing the program that provides positive attention to the killers in the film. The media in the film set up the interview by promising the warden of the prison fame and notoriety in doing so. “Natural Born Killers” exposes the irresponsibility of these media tendencies. The narrative of the film is fueled by the fictitious media which promotes and glorifies the violence conducted by the main characters. Oliver Stone uses commercials in the film after graphic murder scenes in order to illustrate media influence as doing so downplays the previously horrific scenes. At the end of the film even Robert Downey Jr’s character participates in the use of gun violence in the serial killer’s prison break only to succumb to his own death at the hands of the serial killers he aided in freeing.
After “Natural Born Killers” was released a victim of gun violence sued Oliver Stone due to her assailant’s viewing of ‘Natural Born Killers’ while on acid right before the crime was committed. Another victim in the shooting was killed who happened to be a friend of best selling author John Grisham who participated in the lawsuit citing irresponsibility on Oliver Stone’s part in making a film that incites violent behavior. After several deliberations and appeals the case was eventually dropped but it did call into question the practices of the film industry in relation to its influence on society as a whole. Despite individual reactions to ‘Natural Born Killers’, the film was reactionary to the irresponsibility of the media in perpetuating and profiting from public fear of such societal problems as gun violence and it’s manifestation.
In this example it demonstrates that certain responsibilities and, potentially, compromises have to be made when taking into account the fact that a product of art will be reproduced to the masses and how that changes the “aura” of art itself, what it does to creativity and the control an artist has over it in that more so than ever art as a product is at the mercy of the prejudices of how its reproduction is manifested.
Art doesn’t just have to be ‘reproduced’ for that type of interpretation/mutilation to happen – surely the viewer’s interaction with it is purely subjective and therefore varies with every encounter it has?
The way I see it, an artwork needs to be separated from the artist, otherwise we will only ever see it as an expression of the artist’s intent, and that can easily lead to a closed perception of the piece, that is, it is not open to interpretation because the riddle of its meaning has been ‘solved’. Whereas each person has a subjective interaction with the art object, just as artworks interact with each other.
I can see what you’re saying about the media taking something satirical and making a scapegoat of it, but by making the film accessible, the filmmaker is allowing that to happen. When the art object is autonomous, it can be used to produce further works of significance, surely?
What is lost in the osmosis between art and life? the problems artists face when expected to deliver something personal and profound with intense public scrutiny, on a constricted schedule, while simultaneously having to deal with their own personal relationships have put immense pressure on artists to produce as their product will be autonomous in its reproduction to a subjective audience. The machine, so to speak, has instilled a capitalistic framework to how art is made, like everything else that is consumed, has inundated the market with production. Once that reproduction gains influence over the artist, the quality of the artist’s work is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory in that the pressure to reproduce circumvents the inherent artistic inspiration.
Hi, we would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the follow and wishing you all the best in this festive season. Cheer~