Comments and questions in response to Benjamin’s essay.
I. I am not sure whether to take this as an introduction or a separate section in a disjointed collection of essay-pieces. Benjamin seems to be setting the reader up to analyze the relationship between capitalism and art–how art has developed with the economy.
II. He makes a good point in saying that reproducibility is nothing new–since art existed, people have replicated it. But now with the ease of reproducing art (“technological” reproduction), we have to consider what this new development will do to our society. I’ve often thought about this at museums while looking at photographs (an artform Benjamin talks about in this section). I always love looking at portraits of people, but there is something slightly less thrilling about looking at a photograph because of its reproducibility. No one can “own” an original of a photograph–it is made to be made over again.
III. I had never thought about “changes of ownership” as something which differentiates one work of art from another. Benjamin uses the word “authentic” in this section–but is authenticity becoming less important now that artwork can be reproduced? There is no “authentic” film in the same way there is an authentic painting or sculpture.
IV. Bejamin says here that “the aura is going through a decay.” I think of the aura as not only the original work of art, but the feeling we get when looking at the original work of art. I have trouble understanding the way Benjamin relates this to perception–is he saying that what we perceive to be “real” is different, or simply that we don’t care what is “real” anymore??
V. What is the ritual Benjamin is speaking of here? Is he talking about religious ritual–worshipping of images, for instance? He gives the example of Venus as a “sinister idol”–and isn’t idolatry simply a reproduction of some imagined figure to give people something tangible to worship?
VI. It is interesting that Benjamin talks about different kinds of value of artwork here. While I was abroad, I worked at an art gallery that specialized in Victorian painting. I found myself often wondering what gave each piece value–we put prices on everything, so it undoubtedly had monetary value, and clients invested in pieces as they might the stock market. The amount of skill an artist possessed was important to some extent, as was how aesthetically pleasing the piece actually was, but more important was the monetary value that an appraiser assigned to it. This may not be exactly what Benjamin was talking about in this section, but it certainly relates to the idea of art as a commodity.
VII. I love that Benjamin points out a time when “captions became obligatory.” The purpose of an early photographic portrait is obvious–to “maintain the aura” of a person long after they’re gone. The very essence of photography in the beginning was our fascination with it and the fact that it seems impossible to capture a still, real-life image. But once the artform evolved into something that didn’t necessitate human content–like Atget’s photos–a number of different artistic elements developed which hadn’t applied to photographs before.
VIII. Film’s “artistic character is entirely determined by its reproducibility”–what point is there in making a film if no one is going to see it? But I don’t think film is the only artform that is the “exact antithesis of work created at a single stroke”–writing is like that, though technology has made it even easier to edit literary art.
IX. “Film had not yet realized its real purpose.” I think this is interesting–we can definitely see an evolution of film when we compare contemporary films to the comedies of remarriage we’ve watched in the past. Film had to take the same path that photography did and move away from its most simple purpose of recording reality and become a means for creating a new reality, a work of art.
X. I feel like Benjamin is setting up an opposition between the film and stage actor–perhaps film is less close to “reality” because the film actor is given multiple takes in order to complete one shot. As a result, he must “assert his humanity against the apparatus”–come across as a human, relating to other human beings, though he is only in actuality “relating” to a camera.
XI. I find the description of the film actor as “exiled” to be completely melodramatic. Benjamin suggests that, because a film character is separated from his “aura,” it is impossible for us to think of him as a character at all, as we would with a theater performance–but I think this is something that has changed in recent years, and separates good actors from great ones.
XII. To put yourself before the masses is to open yourself up to scrutiny; I suppose if Benjamin is right and it really is impossible to separate the image of the human being from the image of the character, it is also impossible to separate the scrutiny of a film from the scrutiny of the person playing in it. This might be changing even more now that we have movies which are entirely computer animated–they don’t require any real actors (other than voiceovers) or a camera apparatus at all.
XIII. “Literary competence is no longer founded on specialized higher education but on polytechnic training, and thus is common property.” I’ve heard this said about our current time, that “everyone is a writer.” This is one instance where Benjamin’s studies could be applied to a contemporary society which is far beyond his lifetime–couldn’t he completely be talking about blogs here?
XIV. Painting does not have the power to convince us that it is reality like film does. Is that right?
XV. I don’t really understand the point Benjamin is making here, again–certainly painting was originally meant to be received by a smaller audience. But now every art form is reproducible.. Maybe my mindset is just tainted because I grew up in the internet age, but I don’t get it.
XVI. To say that human beings have an”optical unconscious” seems a little frivilous, but there is something to the fact that we are able to examine human motion when it’s recorded in film. But what does that mean? What good does that do? Is this another way film changes our perception, as he argues?
XVII. I struggle to think that Dadaism had much to do with the invention of film. Film would’ve come about regardless because our society hungers for new technology constantly, in a progressive way. Although both Dadism and film definitely turn every day absurdities into art, their similarity is not so great that Dadaism neccessitated film.
XVIII. I like this sentence: “The masses are criticized for seeking distraction in the work of art, whereas the art lover supposedly approaches it with concentration. In the case of the masses, the artwork is seen as a means of entertainment; in the case of the art lover, it is considered an object of devotion.” I feel like this discrepency is not only between art viewers, but between art itself–some of it is made to be examined, some of it is made to entertain. Film can fit into both.
XIX. Is all art politicized?
Most people who know me know that Annie Hall is one of my favorite movies of all time. I fell in love with it from the first time I saw Woody Allen’s opening monologue and have been obsessed with it ever since.
