The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, by Walter Benjamin, is a reading that depicts the good and the bad of a technological society and its ability to mass-produce works of art. In relation to paintings, “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”(Benjamin, 20). With the 1920s being a decade of great technological advances, in direct correlation to works of art, the means to reproduce images range greatly from photography, printing, as well as film to name a few and it has greatly affected the value of the original piece of work. In mass reproduction of paintings, although visually being identical, the history and “aura” of the initial are diminished and lost; “That which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art”(Benjamin, 21).

“For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility”(Benjamin, 23). In this reproduction, the intended value of the work of art is lost, value on the subsistence of the original, and becomes political which focuses more on the message of the art. In the Preface of this reading, I found Marx interpretation of the Capitalist future to be highly comparable to the reproduction of once meaningful forms of work to it thus losing its history to the technological advances of society. Marx’s expectation of capitalism in the future at that time was “one could expect it not only to exploit the proletariat with increasing intensity, but ultimately to create conditions which would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself’ (Benjamin, 18). Although Benjamin feels negatively about the reproduction of paintings, it appears he sees the value in the mass production of film, photography and such because it is an image of an image and has no history or aura to take away from and can only benefit society through reaching an array of audiences.

"On my honor I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work"