The construction and reconstruction of film has led to decline of aura by taking away the freshness and rawness of moments that movie tries to capture. No more can one appreciate the beauty in hum of a four year old when encountering the ‘perfecticised’ and digitized art. For example Facebook probably is the first time ever that one can keep in touch with about every friend on the internet which loses the “aura” again
Written in 1936, by German culture critic Walter Benjamin, the essay “the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” finds strong parallels in 21st century
with orientation to digital reproduction. The views presented by Walter in the essay appear to have gone a step further from mechanical reproduction of art to digital reproduction in this day and age. The digital experience has propelled the question of reproduction of art beyond the basic continually raised arguments due to the emergence of the world of Internet. Art and information have actively surfaced and have left neither artist nor audience passive scholars anymore. The experience began with enhanced technology that gave more control and dexterity to the artist to wrap his thoughts in the medium of his choice, i.e., written, pictorial, film or sound without imparting it a physical component. It gave all arts an abstract intangible texture which elevates the position of idea to a higher level than its form. Digitisation of technology over the years has given birth to magnificent compositions that we witness as we reminisce about the ancient craft of capturing the beautiful and wonder what the future holds for all of humanity.
As Walter articulates in the Preface, “the transformation of the superstructure, which takes place far more slowly than that of the substructure, has taken more than half a century to manifest in all areas of culture the change in the conditions of production.” The medium of art, driven by technology in every age has always affected the expression but in the case of mechanical and digital reproduction age the form has transformed the expression in many ways and manifested itself in the structure of present day art.
Talking about authenticity of art, Walter says“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership.” Though Walter puts forth the argument that the importance of art is set in time and space, for a society and audiences of a certain age where and when the work of art holds most significance, in the present age dominated by digital reproduction of art has imparted additional exquisiteness to a work of historical significance. The technology instead of losing the “aura” of the work makes it more fascinating for an audience of dissimilar time and space to appreciate the work. Digital reproduction enables the ‘new’ audience to evaluate the power of the thought to time travel. Interesting example of which is the remake culture in movies. Appreciation of movie constructed again in different era and place grows tremendously today because of is historical aspect because of digital revolution.
Walter later argues “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity. Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was usually branded as a forgery, the original preserved all its authority; not so vis-à-vis technical reproduction. The reason is twofold. First, process reproduction is more independent of the original than manual reproduction. Secondly, technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself. Above all, it enables the original to meet the beholder halfway, be it in the form of a photograph or a phonograph record. The cathedral leaves its locale to be received in the studio of a lover of art; the choral production, performed in an auditorium or in the open air, resounds in the drawing room.”
In the digital world, original and authentic have little value and meaning but the notion and perception hold significance for the spectators. For example, web sites like Youtube, news portals and blogs have carved niche audiences for theirselves since the web visitors look for new information, thoughts and ideas no caring about the loss of “aura” and change of form that re-production leads to.
The essay makes a case “One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. 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. The concept of aura which was proposed with reference to historical objects may usefully be illustrated with reference to the aura of natural ones. We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be. If, while resting on a summer afternoon, you follow with your eyes a mountain range on the horizon or a branch which casts its shadow over you, you experience the aura of those mountains, of that branch. This image makes it easy to comprehend the social bases of the contemporary decay of the aura. It rests on two circumstances, both of which are related to the increasing significance of the masses in contemporary life. Namely, the desire of contemporary masses to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction. Every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness, its reproduction. The adjustment of reality to the masses and of the masses to reality is a process of unlimited scope, as much for thinking as for perception.”
The authenticity of art in any form itself lives in its reproduction. The work of art is reproduction of the real. Digital technology has brought the re-reproduction of real very close to the contemporary masses “spatially and humanly.” The movement is carried forward today by internet where every work of art is a click away.
In the debate between photography and painting and if photography is an art, walter refutes“In photography, exhibition value begins to displace cult value all along the line. But cult value does not give way without resistance. It retires into an ultimate retrenchment: the human countenance. It is no accident that the portrait was the focal point of early photography. The cult of remembrance of loved ones, absent or dead, offers a last refuge for the cult value of the picture. For the last time the aura emanates from the early photographs in the fleeting expression of a human face. This is what constitutes their melancholy, incomparable beauty. But as man withdraws from the photographic image, the exhibition value for the first time shows its superiority to the ritual value. To have pinpointed this new stage constitutes the incomparable significance of Atget, who, around 1900, took photographs of deserted Paris streets.”
Though today photography essentially is a medium to express oneself through images. Much like a work of art. But photography, with its inception, is rooted to reality or to the tangible. One cannot capture what does not exist. This intrinsic aspect of photography brings with it some freedom and some restrictions. Art may and often does venture into the fantasy world but it is a realm where photography does not have an access. That is the restrictive element. But photography has its own “aura” because of the fact that we live in a dynamic world where real things are constantly in motion.
Photography uses these freedoms and grapple with the restrictions to come out with a truly telling picture, which though two dimensional, still captures a fleeting emotion, a feeling, an image and a moment in time. Photography is used effectively to give strength to a view or an idea in digital as well as manual form.
Another layer of argument in the authenticity of art says“What matters is that the part is acted not for an audience but for a mechanical contrivance – in the case of the sound film, for two of them. “The film actor,” wrote Pirandello, “feels as if in exile – exiled not only from the stage but also from himself. With a vague sense of discomfort he feels inexplicable emptiness: his body loses its corporeality, it evaporates, it is deprived of reality, life, voice, and the noises caused by his moving about, in order to be changed into a mute image, flickering an instant on the screen, then vanishing into silence …. The projector will play with his shadow before the public, and he himself must be content to play before the camera.” This situation might also be characterized as follows: for the first time – and this is the effect of the film – man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.”
The construction and reconstruction of film has led to decline of aura by taking away the freshness and rawness of moments that movie tries to capture. No more can one appreciate the beauty in hum of a four year old when encountering the ‘perfecticised’ and digitized art. For example Facebook probably is the first time ever that one can keep in touch with about every friend on the internet which loses the “aura” again.
“For centuries a small number of writers were confronted by many thousands of readers. This changed toward the end of the last century. With the increasing extension of the press, which kept placing new political, religious, scientific, professional, and local organs before the readers, an increasing number of readers became writers – at first, occasional ones. It began with the daily press opening to its readers space for “letters to the editor.” And today there is hardly a gainfully employed European who could not, in principle, find an opportunity to publish somewhere or other comments on his work, grievances, documentary reports, or that sort of thing. Thus, the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character. The difference becomes merely functional; it may vary from case to case. At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer. As expert, which he had to become willy-nilly in an extremely specialized work process, even if only in some minor respect, the reader gains access to authorship. In the Soviet Union work itself is given a voice. To present it verbally is part of a man’s ability to perform the work. Literary license is now founded on polytechnic rather than specialized training and thus becomes common property.”
The constraint that lies in digital reproduction despite its tremendous power is the digital divide which divides the world into two sections – People who have and people who don’t have access to digital/modern information technology. Though digital technology keeps everyone on the same platform, and gives greater power to the audience which is no longer passive and now there is no limitation in the reader and the writer, the access is still limited in todays digital world.
