Pre-Class: The Reproduction of Art

In Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Benjamin discusses the mechanical reproduction of works of art and the effects left on the original works. One quote that caught my attention was "the situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated." I interpreted this quote as saying that the repercussions of reproducing a major work of art includes the original work losing its intended meaning. Personally, I've experienced this phenomenon. I was never interested in seeing the original of Van Gogh's Starry Night because I had seem so many replications of it. Once I saw the original Starry Night in person, I was speechless. Due to my experience I would have to disagree with Benjamin and agree with him at the same time. The replications do diminish the idea of the original, but the experience of the original work restores, even advances, it's meaning. The reproductions are not able to capture the aura, or the uniqueness as Benjamin explains it, of the original work of art. In terms of photography, there is no sure original when multiple prints from one negative are made. In the world of film, the aura of a person on screen is not comparable to the aura of a person on stage. The stage actor has the advantage of getting into character, performing in front of a live audience, and therefore shaping their aura in their own way. The film actor does not have these opportunities. The film actor has their aura shaped for them by the camera's angles; therefore it does not take much acting to create a successful film. Benjamin also explains that several art theorists questioned if photography and film could even be considered as art. Considering the differences in the principles of reproduction of photography, film, and visual art I can understand where this question came into play.