Sophia Diaz - Essay Response

Reading this essay was a bit of a brain teaser, as I was not sure how Fascism and Communism truly tied into Benjamin's thesis regarding art and the age of "mechanical reproduction." Also, I felt he was contradicting himself at times but perhaps that was just his way of presenting both sides of the argument...

First and foremost, I want to say that I do agree that sometimes (most times?), absolutely nothing can compare with standing in front of the original Venus de Milo, or other original artwork, rather than viewing a reproduction. But I have to say...I don't really agree with the bashing of mechanical reproduction and technology/camera/film in art.

Anyways, I want to focus on something Benjamin mentioned; that being that "historical testimony rests on authenticity." I think that authenticity does not just apply to the presence of the original painting, but also to pieces of art produced (or reproduced in a new way) by technology. The original anything--be it a painting, a landscape, etc.--does not "whither in the age of mechanical reproduction." Rather, it reactivates the original in a new way (I agree with Charlie and with Yasmine in that respect). It modifies an image in a new, original and fresh perspective that the masses would not have known/discovered otherwise. It becomes unique in its own respect...sure, it's uniqueness does not stem from the "fabric of tradition," but part of making art is about breaking tradition, experimenting and trying new things anyways! (in my opinion).

As for what Benjamin states about film, I completely disagree (and agree with Claudine as well). I come out of certain films completely baffled that something that amazing or that new could be in existence--it inspires a strong reaction in me.

Reactions are a part of what is instigated in Benjamin's definition of an "aura" produced by an original artwork. Films are original, unique pieces of art that inspire reactions from their audiences. I don't think that the film actor is in exile at all--the film actor may not have the same effect on an audience as an actor on a stage, but film actors and films in general still inspire the masses and maintain their own artistic merit. The act of an audience taking the position of a camera and running with the lenses' course of choice is part of the film/cinematic artistic experience.

I also thought that Benjamin's cameraman-mechanical-reproductive image of reality vs. the painter's reality is very interesting. In a nutshell he states that the cameraman's reality consists of "multiple fragments which are assembled under new law" while a painter presents the "total" image of reality. They are both art and both maintain their own unique, potent auras.

Technology and the notion of "mechanical reproduction," however, has only expanded the realm of art in my opinion, not tarnished it.