Benjamin writes about the "aura" or basic essence that an object or piece of art carries. With the mechanical reproduction of art, he refers to a loss or aura. As we discussed in class though, Benjamin didn't necessarily view this as a bad thing since creativity, genius, and the prestige connected with high end art could be utilized for the Fascist cause.
After reading Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," I couldn't help but see connections to popular culture, particularly themes the permeate the novels of science fiction writer Philip K. Dick. This connection is most noticeable when it comes to the discussion on authenticity. Benjamin discusses film and photography's impact on art, and how the original is no longer important once quality replicas of the original can be produced on a large scale. While some of the basic essence of an object is lost with replication, the replicas do in fact get infused with what we might call the "mirror image equivalent" of aura, which is then projected on the masses.
Philip K. Dick's novel, "The Man in the High Castle" strikes a similar cord when the characters examine counterfeit objects and note that their value doesn't so much lie in their authenticity as the story and history attached to that given object. It doesn't matter if it's real, it just matters that the people think it holds importance and historical significance.
Here are two short passages from the book that tie in with this topic of authenticity and aura. Keep in mind that it is science fiction.
“Listen. One of these two Zippo lighters was in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s pocket when he was assassinated. And one wasn’t. One has historicity, a hell lot of it. As much as any object ever had. And one has nothing, can you feel it?” He nudged her, “You can’t. You can’t tell which is which. There is no ‘mystical plasmic presence,’ no ‘aura’ around it.”
" Its all a big racket; they are playing it on themselves. I mean, a gun goes through a famous battle, like the Meuse-Argonne, and it's the same as if hadn't, unless you know. It's in here." He tapped his head. "in the mind, not the gun..." (Dick, p. 57).
So if authenticity doesn't matter and the aura is "in the mind of the beholder," then do we even need the original? What do you guys think? Do films, photographs, recordings of a live musical performance successfully convey the original's aura to you? I'd love to hear your thoughts, as well as reactions to other parts of the blog linked above.
That's such a good point! Does authenticity even exist unless we call it such? Old items, let's use antiques as an example, are only as expensive and sought after as they are because someone, somewhere, said they were old and had a lot of history behind them. If they were just worn-looking pieces of furniture, but we had no associations of it with the distant past, would we still want to buy them?
ReplyDeleteI think the answer is definitely no.
'Authenticity' is a human construct, one in which we apply meaning to something based on a trait that we can't originally see. It's like getting a diamond ring, being in awe at it's beauty, and then finding out it's a fake and suddenly thinking it to be ugly.
Nothing about it has changed - it's just a title that has dramatically altered our perception of it's 'aura'.
I think that the original of films and photographs are important, if for no other reason than that copies of copies of copies eventually lose their visual clarity. It's also amazing to think about how something from what seems like so long ago is still preserved so well. But, again, if we didn't know whether or not something was original...I don't think we'd care.
If Benjamin had a deadbeat twin, I would say:
ReplyDeleteListen. One of these two Benjamins is a famous philosopher and critical theorist. And one isn’t. One has historicity, a hell lot of it. As much as any person ever had. And one has nothing, can you feel it? You can’t. You can’t tell which is which. There is no ‘mystical plasmic presence,’ no ‘aura’ around him.
(:
Anyway, it is totally about human perception and assigning value to things. Things gain (or lose) value when they have a certain context. Why are the Kardashians famous? Why do we value Jackson Pollock's work over, say, the masterpieces we produced at age 2? Have I made my point?
Yes ma'am! Haha I laughed when I read the bit about the Kardashians. Good question.
ReplyDelete