In his essay, The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, Walter Benjamin comments on technology’s effect on art and how it alienates and dissolves meaning from the works and those involved with it. Discussing a critical history of the reproduction of art and the invention of film, the critic shows us how technology has changed our relationship to art similarly to how capitalism has changed the relationship between the worker and his product.

One of Benjamin’s most significant ideas from the piece is that of cult value versus exhibition value in art. Cult value, which he describes to be the significance of the art to a culture or religion, is gained through keeping artistic works from being seen, bringing it out only to serve the purposes of said culture or religion. Technological reproduction, through copies, pictures on the internet, or simply the ability to hop on a plane and visit the art heightens exhibition value (the ability to view the work of art), and diminishes the “aura” of the work, created by its special tie to its origin culture.

This is an especially Marxist argument, because it shows how an institution such as artistry, seen as one of the most disinterested areas in which to work, is subjected to capitalist ideals. Marx, in Capital, Volume I, discusses the value of commodities and the connection between that value and the time it took to produce them. He also examines how value through price does not do justice to a product’s value as a whole (i.e. use value, the narrative behind how a product was created etc.) With a capitalist society’s ability to produce a large number of products in a small amount of time, the value of said products drops, especially their qualitative value. The same happens when art is able to be seen by a great variety of people; art loses that special quality found in something that is rare or scarce.

Film, a different kind of art because it can only be produced by technology (whereas a painting can exist without it), is also discussed by Benjamin. While film is also subjected to the idea of mass reproduction and the loss of “aura” that other works of art are, the writer takes his argument further by stating that “The stage actor identifies himself with a role. The film actor very often is denied this opportunity. His performance is by no means a unified whole, but is assembled from many individual performances”(Benjamin 1061). Like the laborer Marx describes who cannot take ownership over his work because he has only a small part in creating the product, a film actor cannot take ownership over their performance because the film is not a direct representation of what he does. He will perform for the camera, and he will say all of his lines, but the end result is a series of videos and close ups edited together. Five minutes of a movie could be a compilation of a month of these different takes and shots, and is likely to have no correspondence to the actor’s experience of acting.

Despite these arguments through which I have made Benjamin’s attitude towards technological reproduction seem very negative, it is important to note that Benjamin’s application of the ideals of capitalism to a product (his being art), is not entirely pessimistic. The critic’s idea of value is fluid, and he sees the usefulness in being able to reproduce art for the entire world to see, rather than just in its exclusivity for a certain “cult”. Film’s ability to be slowed and played over again allows us to notice details we would normally miss in a play only seen once or irreproducible human interaction. Film allows us to see “what happens during the split second when a person actually takes a step”(Benjamin 1066). The wonderful qualities of reproduction are not lost on Benjamin, and show us that the value found in scarcity is not necessarily diminished in reproduction, but transformed.

During this time when this piece was written, Benjamin has been exiled by Nazi Germany. He moved to France which left him deeply affected by the politically tumultuous situation in France. In this piece he explores how Marx capitalism would cause exploitation of the proletariat which would conclude in destruction. He claims that a change in the mode of production demands the construction of a new concept that would flesh out the predisposition behind creation of art within an economically driven climate. He claims this new concept would render facism dysfunctional because it would only obliterate the importance of creativity associated with the work of art.
Benjamin admits that art has always been reproducible. He references traditional forms of reproduction within art such as etching, monoprints, lithography, and other forms of printing. But the technological reproduction of art is something different in it’s own right. Benjamin explains the two manifestations of reproducible art using technology such as photography and film: 1) technological reproducibility of art affects the authenticity of the original work. The technological modes of reproduction obliterates the authenticity of the work of art yet it’s different from replicas made by hand which would be considered “counterfeit copies”. As discussed, in the Effects of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, the same applies with technological reproduction because the aura becomes displaced or lost. When referring to film, the aura is lost and the reproducible image itself exemplifies a subtle shift. 2) the process of technological reproduction renders itself as a work of art such as the art of the film or photo.
Benjamin explains the subtle changes that may affect the way people consume reproduced technology:
1) technological reproduction often emphasizes aspects of a work of art which might not be easily seen by the human eye.
– What immediately comes to mind are directors like David Lynch, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Wes Anderson. Directors are that known for their distinct style of cinematography. As the audience, we  come to assign specific scenes that each director has created that defines their style as directors. But rarely do we come to realize that their acclaimed artistic eye within the realm of film is really just a lens in which we view the film. We willingly and excitingly wait to see films made by these director and willingly accept the type of reality that they produce. In Psycho we only see certain scenes of the murder through the victims perspective until Hitchcock decides to show subtle cutaway scenes of a knife or chocolate syrup as blood. The director makes the decision and calls the shots over our perception. It makes me question if as humans, are we almost subconsciously willing to accept other realms of reality for entertainment? Or does it go deeper to quell a sense of insecurity or escapism?
2) it has the ability to be accessible through the reproduction. Allowing a wider audience to to consume the piece, further prolonging the physical lifespan of the reproduced work, making the original work irrelevant.
– I can definitely agree to this notion especially with the age of the internet where everything is obtainable with just a click. But it makes me wonder about bootleg films that tend to have certain subtle technical aspects changes such as the lighting or volume due to poor reproduction under illegal  channels. Does this then undermine or challenge the first subtle change listed where a certain lens is established by the director? Does a warp in the director’s lens and authenticity of the reproduction? How severe can a change in the lens be to the audience and to the authenticity of the original work?
-It also makes me question if due to the over accessibility of the work, does it lose its aura or speciality? It reminded me of Bogost with “Egg McNothing” of how the change in the McDonalds chain, allowing breakfast all day became a sign of a subtle shift to how we consume items and deal with our own patience. Similar to the egg mcmuffin being only available at breakfast time, movies (for a long time now) are no longer captive within movie theaters. There is no longer a singularity of a product and it’s intensity dies out. McDonalds and technological reproduction are somewhat parallel because they change the way people are conditioned where Egg McMuffins and movies in movie theaters obtained a tiny bit of aura within their products of production only to be abolished.
These subtle changes contends to the devaluation for the here and now which decays the aura of the art. Though technological reproduction also liberates the work of art from it’s subservience to the ritual roots of making replicas in a secular setting (which had become one of the purposes behind the creation of art). Once detached from it’s roots, it’s social function can be politically manipulated. Technology allows artists to constantly make modifications and improvements, creating more eternal value.
The piece switches from the person holding the camera to the person in front of the camera- the actor. The duty of an actor is to perform in front of a “mechanical apparatus” which allows it to capture the actor’s movements and replicate it across multiple screens. The replication dissolves the aura of the actor’s performance. Does this mean that the only way to receive the true deliverance of an actor is only through seeing plays in person?
A distinction between the art lover and the mass audience is then explored by Benjamin. The art lover closely observes the work of art in order to appreciate the aesthetics value. An art lover becomes absorbed by the work of art. The mass audience approaches art for distraction or entertainment. The work of art becomes assimilated into the mass audience, almost into the background of their presence. It counters the art lover where the piece of art is the focus and reason to their presence. Though the masses become utilized as an instrument of political mobilization. This lends a subtle authority to the masses because of their lack of authentic appreciation for the piece of art. This becomes almost like a void that is usually fulfilled by the artist but since they don’t appreciate it’s aesthetic value or become absorbed by the piece, politicians and campaigns look to fill this void. They politicize pieces of work so that the masses are able to react to it. They are unaware of it’s aesthetic value that art lovers are aware of. Benjamin shows how a piece of work has the ability to absorb or be absorbed by the viewer.

Antonio Gramsci brings up two interesting concepts in “The Formation of the Intellectuals,” they are the organic and traditional intellectuals, which are formed from social groups. He begins by explaining the organic intellectual by pretty much saying that an organic intellectual would be someone with both the knowledge of industry technology and someone involved in labor. In addition, organic intellectuals are spotted easily when new social classes rise to power since organic intellectuals could be considered revolutionaries. Gramsci’s concept of the “organic intellectual” shows his support for the working class, it shows that he believed in the capabilities the working class had to offer. The traditional intellectuals can be seen as the people in power, or the people who support the system in power. Traditional intellectuals are significant in the way hegemony operates because for an emerging class to entirely overthrow the ruling class, it becomes necessary for the traditional intellectuals to come under the influence of the emerging class ideology (1006). In other words, it becomes necessary for the traditional intellectuals to change their usual linear way of thinking and doing things.
Furthermore, Gramsci critiques the usual definition of intellectual which is associated with the traditional intellectual (teachers, doctors, etc) because he claims, “in any physical work there exists a minimum of technical qualification, that is, a minimum of creative intellectual.” In other words, an intellectual can not only be defined by how “book smart” he or she is or it can’t be exclusive to only “book smart” people. The definition of intellectual has to fit those who are intelligent through other forms such as music, art, etc. This old definition shows that the classification of a person within society is more linked to their social function (profession) than their unique humanity. Gramsci states, “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals” (1004). In other words, society does not let many people fulfill their paths of intellectualism. For example, money stops a lot of people from continuing their education, preventing the existence of future doctors or lawyers. Plus, many people don’t fulfill their roles as intellectuals in a society because they never discover it. Think of them as undiscovered artists. I think the fact that Gramsci is challenging the definition of intellectual, opens the door for the working class to gain power and respect. He is speaking for the working class that was not given the opportunity to be part of the traditional intellectuals, but that nonetheless are intellectuals.

Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility” delves into how modern innovation since the industrial revolution, and thereby the beginnings of capitalism as we know it, has changed the status of art. Benjamin invokes Marxist concepts as the ability to mass-distribute art amongst the people and dissolve the ‘aura’ that surrounds a work appears progressive upon first inspection. When we change how we consume art, and therefore how we view art, it leads to the creation of new artforms, like film. Yet, as methods to reproduce art have become increasingly sophisticated, new mediums emerge and consumers of ‘art’ continue to grow, they have also been largely co-opted by capitalism. Benjamin discusses film in particular and how it comparatively differs from painting in its reproducibility, production and utilization.

Reproducing art is not just limited to nineteenth century innovations with photography. It has a long history that spans back to days of wood etching to lithography. But, the relatively newfound ability post-industrial revolution to reproduce works photorealistically has stripped away what Benjamin refers to as the ‘aura.’ Art has always been shrouded in some sort of distant, mythical ‘aura’ and was often tied to religious or ritualistic meaning. In reproduction, this is stripped away. “The stripping of the veil from the object, the destruction of the aura, is the signature of a perception whose ‘sense for sameness in the world’ has so increased that, by means of production, it extracts sameness even from what is unique.” (1055-1056) From this, a newfound focus on authenticity emerges, a concept that is wholly dependent on the creation of copies to compare to the original and therefore more ‘authentic’ work. This is only further complicated by the ability that I could walk up to a painting, take a picture of it with my phone and be able to zoom in on all the texture, the gradient of colors, the figures and see the painting for what it is. It is an accurate representation, but its ‘authenticity’ is debatable.

When Benjamin raises questions about the most innovative art-form of the 20th century, its reproducibility helps and hinders conceptions of art. (I’ve yet to make up my mind on the matter.) Film is an artistic medium that is intended on being easily mass produced, being widely distributed and having as many eyeballs on it as much as possible. Film has effectively killed the ‘aura’. It’s not an abstract painting hanging up on a well lit museum wall, where this one frame can be stared at for hours to extract meaning and becomes revered and more distant in the process. Film consists of a succession of many, many frames that constantly move and are leaving in a blink of an eye. We are subject to the constant movement and it does not wait for us, which can either lend itself to a joyful acquiescence in front of a mindless 90 minute rom-com or we go back and deconstruct it and try to contextualize all of the frames. The ability for a filmmaker to produce a work with a specific perspective and vision that can critique society seems revolutionary (and within specific means Benjamin claims that it actually can be. Yet, the film industry and the (re)production of films has become a capitalistic process like any other. Benjamin invokes unique allusions to Marx when discussing the fragmentary nature of film (re)production and paints a picture of Hollywood as a factory. Film is unique in that its production is split up into small parts that are essentially glued together at the end, much like any mass-produced product that is assembled with new hands for every new bolt and nut. The alienation of factory workers draws a fascinating parallel to the alienation of screen actors. Stage acting is live, performed to an audience of people and runs through an entire work when performed, much like a cobbler guild master who makes the shoe from start to finish. Screen acting is broken up into scenes and parts, often performed out of sequence and into an object, the glaring lens of a camera. Acting is a complicated process and involves both difficult physical and emotional labor, and there is a peculiar emptiness to expending vast amounts of emotion into a camera and essentially delaying the performance. Thousands of films are mass produced this way year after year. The formulas/genres of films that are successful and fill the most seats are repeated over and over, and what could be ‘revolutionary’ is often kicked to the curb.

Film is a naturally mass-produced art form that could lend itself to progressive social analysis or critique. That doesn’t mean it never happens anymore, there are films made in 2017 like the recent Get Out that do this successfully. But, even those films who are tied to thoughtful social commentary are subject to the demands of capitalism, i.e selling more tickets, getting good reviews, then winning more awards, and selling even more tickets/DVDS/streams once those awards have been won. America’s most loved mass-produced art form is a complicated hing to reconcile with.

In the text “The Work of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin talks about a change in the idea and the affects of the film and photography in the twentieth century. He also talks about the sense of changes in humanity’s way of existence. For example, the way we look and see the visual work of art is different. While reading, I wonder how does human perception relate to history? Is it a worldwide idea that is being discussed heavily. Can there be a worldwide idea the first place? Benjamin tries to show something specific about the modern age of the effects of modern work of art.  Mainly, Film and photography. Benjamin also talks about the loss of the aura through the mechanical reproduction of art. The aura for Benjamin is the originality and authenticity of a work of art that really hasn’t been reproduced.  If we think about it, a painting has an aura while a photograph doesn’t. The photograph is an image of an image while the painting remains  only original.The sense of the aura is lost on film and the reproducible image just shows a historical change that we have to take account of even if when we don’t really notice it. What does it mean when the aura is lost? How does it function and how does it come about? Benjamin writes of the loss of the aura as a loss of an authority within the work of art. But what comes through in this new space left by the death to the aura? How does the mechanically reproduced work of art manage to make up for this void?As Benjamin goes on, a tension between new modes of perception and the aura come up alot. As soon as you remove authority within the original work of art infers a loss of authority. The cameraman, for example, comes on with what we see in a way which a painting can never do. It directs the eye towards a specific place and a specific story; at the same time it happens to be very revolutionary and  it is also totalitarian. It guides us to a particular side of a story and leaves other parts out. It bores our perception towards the work of art and shows us distraction as a mode of reception. The location of anything we might call the aura has to be moved into a unique space, which I find deep and interesting.

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin, explains how art reproduced by machines are different to the original art. We can have technological advancement to reproduce art for the masses to view, but the experience of looking at the art would be different. There is a special “presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be”(1053) of the original art. There is history behind the original work and there is a unique aura because it existed for a certain amount of time without being destroyed. Benjamin also writes, “The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition”(1054) meaning all reproduced work will never be authentic, but the acceptance of mechanical reproduction will diminish the aura of the original artwork.

The authenticity of the original is backed by ritual and how it was used historically. Art at first may start out as rituals, but it slowly merges with our lives which turns art into art used for exhibition. With art losing its authenticity, due to  reproduction , it will become more political. Art will lose its original meaning and therefore transform into something else. As Benjamin writes, “But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function is reversed. Instead of being based of ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics.”(1057). An example of this can be a hat. In the beginning a hat is used for blocking out the sun, but as the hat became massively produced, the hat evolved to have other uses such wearing it as aesthetics. Recently, Trump’s red hat transformed a hat into something political. When we look at a red hat now, there is some sort of connection with Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.”

What I found interesting in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction was the epilogue. It talks about two different ideologies: Fascism and Communism. In the first part of the epilogue, it talks about how Fascism “attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate”(1071). It talks about how Fascism doesn’t give the proletarians their rights, but allow them to express themselves. The epilogue eventually leads to how Fascism’s aesthetics in political life will ultimately lead to war. This is interesting because war help set a common goal for the country and allows them to develop new technological advancements. Marinetti says, “War is beautiful because it initiates dreamt of metalization of the human body…War  is beautiful because it creates new architecture…”(1071).

Fascism allows people to express their opinions, but their rights won’t be granted. As the article states, “The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, whom Fascism, with its Führer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values.”(1071).  Wouldn’t that create alienation in the country? The workers will be forced to produce new products for the country which they may not have sympathy for. At one point the workers will tire out from producing products and lead to a breakdown. For Communism, they politicize art to control the masses. They use propaganda to motivate the masses towards a certain goal. This would be a better method for not alienating workers in long term aspect. People will get tired of war, while using art to motivate people can be change subtly to enforce the country’s political agenda.

In “Capital,” chapter 1, by Karl Marx,  Marx examines commodities, the work put into making them,  their use value, and their value. He first examines commodities and their meanings. He takes a look at nature and how, for example, wood is turned into a table to gain value and while it is still wood,  is only seen as a commodity in table form.  That is what man does to nature to create commodities. They make a use value for things of nature. He then goes on to say that the value of these commodities are not only because of their use value, but the product of labor put into them. He writes “In all states of society, the labor-time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development.”  He explains that the time and labor put into a product increases its perceived quality and value. Also, the type of labor that is put into products increase these areas in the same way. This is detrimental to the worker, Marx says, because their value is then “stamped upon the product of that labor” and are seen as valuable by the products of their labor. Mark’s called this fetishism which is attached to products of labor.  the production of commodities create the value of commodities, and thus workers, in society.

This of course still exists in our society today, but it also has changed a bit too. For example, when we look at things like Etsy or flea markets or any place we where we are going to buy something that is “handmade,” we value it much more than if we were to get the same thing made in a factory. Even if both products look the same, we are drawn to the ones where we know the time and labor that has been put into making it. It’s the same way with art.  Oftentimes when looking at a very expensive piece of art people talk about how it took this person five years to create this, which is why it is so good, same with music. But it is also different in our society today because a lot of high-priced, high valued commodities are mass produced in factories where a small amount of time and work has specifically been put into the product you are getting. For example, the brand new iPhones, Macs, or anything of that nature which are very expensive and very desired are not something where someone has set down and put in a lot of work to create the exact product you’re getting. You are getting something from a factory assembly line. In a way, it goes against Marx’s idea that the more produced something is, the less valuable it is . He has the idea that when everyone wants it or has it and it’s mass-produced it loses value, but in our society it’s the opposite. The more popular and used things such as an iPhone, which most people have, are still very high priced and we value them and look at them as a special commodity. But the workers who make these items are still under the same idea that Marx talks about of alienation of work. Most people still work way more than what they should to survive. They’re alienated from their jobs and from society as well, solely to make money. For the most part, Marx’s idea still exist widely in our society.

In this piece, “The Formation of the Intellectuals” by Antonio Gramsci, a very interesting question is brought up. Basically, Gramsci wants to discuss whether intellectuals are a rare breed of their own, mixed in to society amongst commoners, or a breed that comes about just from the comparison to non-intellectuals. In my opinion, I  believe that intellectuals are merely deemed intellectuals in comparison to non-intellectuals. I think that anyone can be considered an intellectual if they are in the right place at the right time. Gramsci starts off by discussing the two types of societal intellectuals: he first describes the “organic” type of intellectual who essentially is a leader. “He must be an organiser of masses of men.” Second he describes a “traditional” intellectual, someone who was already a master of a certain field and then goes out to start a new type group. Both of these types of intellectuals are only intellectuals when being compared to people who are not intellectuals. Gramsci says “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals.” Gramsci is saying that anyone has the potential to rise up and be considered an intellectual but not everyone is given the opportunity.

This writing reminded me of our earlier readings and discussions surrounding language. Sometimes things can only be understood by knowing what they are not. Comparing is a tool that we use to understand almost everything. An apple is an apple because it is not a pear. A table is a table because it is not a chair. What is an intellectual? It can only be defined by comparing to what it is not. For example, an intellectual can only be rightly classified as such if there are other people in the field who are not as knowledgable as the intellectual and they can be compared to each other.

Gramsci goes on to say that nowadays, the rules of being an intellectual have expanded. There are so many different tasks and areas of expertise that anyone can easily become an intellectual in a specific field. However, he continues on to say this is not necessarily a good thing. “Mass formation has standardized individuals both psychologically and in terms of individual qualification and has produced the same phenomena as with other standardized masses: competition which makes necessary organisations for the defence of professions, unemployment, over-production in the schools, emigration etc.” He is saying that although this “unprecedented expansion” helps to create more opportunities for success, it also leaves less room for competition which is needed in order to move forward. Overall, Gramsci’s writing makes one think about what it really means to be an intellectual and how that definition changes as we as a society change and progress.

In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx describes a rather peculiar condition called “alienated labor”, and links the removal of this condition with the elimination of market exchange and the progress of the communist society. In general, for an individual to feel alienated from something or someone means that they lack a sincere identification with it. One can instead address it as something strange or alien-like, and possibly even as an obstacle in their way or as intimidating to oneself. Marx dismisses this idea that roots from capitalism, arguing that alienation occurs from the way human beings regard their own labor.

According to Marx’s theory, there are different aspects of alienation within a society. He discusses that our society is divided into two classes; the owners of property, and the property-less workers. Under this capitalist settlement, the worker not only faces the disadvantages of labor, but also must experience the feeling of being disconnected from the world. This occurs because the worker associates his life to the end product of his work, and this can often become something hostile or alien-like to the worker. The worker puts all his time and effort into the object that he is producing, yet because he does not gain anything from his hard labor, the worker is alienated from the very thing that he had made himself. In capitalism, the upper-class society gets to relish in the product of the worker; as the society demands the production of an object, and the more the worker produces, the more alienated he becomes from his work and himself. The product that he worked so hard for is no longer his property. He feels that he is contributing to a world that unfamiliar to him, somewhere he does not belong. He fears his identity is becoming insignificant compared to the objects that he produces, yet cannot fully have.

Marx continues to explain another form of alienation; the estrangement of the worker from the activity of production. The labor that the worker performs does not actually belong to him, but rather it is just a means of survival. The worker is forced to perform hard labor for someone else’s benefit; this results in the worker working not out of creativity, but rather as a means for completing the job. For example, if an artist is hired by a wealthy being who is willing to pay a large amount of money for his work, the artist will indeed create art for the person, but it will immediately be taken away from him and become someone else’s possession. In this, the artist will have a high level of alienation towards the product of his labor; his own product is now alien-like to him. The currency will not make up for the time-consuming effort that the artist put into his art. This results in the worker experiencing self-alienation, estrangement from his work and finally, disengagement from his own society.