Literary History as Media History

Walter Benjamin and photography

Em :-) — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:36:18 +0000

Although I had never heard of Walter Benjamin before this semester, I was assigned his essays in three out of my four classes semester! (In addition to this one, I read him for a seminar on Bertolt Brecht, and for History of Photography.)

Interestingly, I ended up using our reading for this class (Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction) for one of my papers in Photography. I wrote about the Surrealist artist Man Ray and his fashion photography. Although he’s not primarily known for his fashion shoots (and didn’t particularly want to be remembered for them), I thought they were extremely important in analyzing his contributions to the art world as a whole.

I actually found it extremely frustrating that I couldn’t find more information on the topic. Not only was it hard to find his commercial photography, but rarely was information published on how his images were first released to the public. I realize that this is not something I was entirely conscious of myself before I took this seminar, but now I can’t imagine ignoring such important factors! One of the articles I read talked about African masks losing their significance when displayed on stark white walls in New York galleries, and I wondered why the same attention wasn’t given to other kinds of art.

In any case, the Benjamin quote that immediately stood out to me was:

“Earlier, much futile thought had been devoted to the question of whether photography is an art. The primary question – whether the very invention of photography had not transformed the entire nature of art – was not raised” (227).

Ultimately, I concluded, this was the case with Man Ray’s photography. Below I’ve included one of his well-known images, Noire et blanche. Interestingly, few people know (or care) that it was originally published in Paris Vogue in 1926. I’ve also included its original caption, which was neither written by nor expressly condoned by Man Ray.

I emphasize that Man Ray’s ultimate contribution to photography was bringing it to main-stream magazines where it was not “less than” art, but merely adopted a new function, as Benjamin anticipates here:

“In the same way today, by the absolute emphasis on its exhibition value the work of art becomes a creation with entirely new functions, among which the one we are conscious of, the artistic function, later may be recognzied as incidental. This much is certain: today photography and the film are the most serviceable exemplifications of this new function” (225).

Face of a woman, calm transparent egg straining to shake off the thick head of hair through which she remains bound to primitive nature. It is through women that the evolution of the species to a place full of mystery will be accomplished. Sometimes plaintive, she returns with a feeling of curiosity and dread to one of the stages through which evolved white man has passed, perhaps before becoming today the evolved white man

I’m interested to know what you think of the photo in the context of Vogue and fashion, also what you think of the caption!

The Death of Art for its Own Sake.

ashleysh114 — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:59:34 +0000

What intrigued me most about “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” were Benjamin’s thoughts on the invention of photography, and what it meant for art thereafter. Previously, original works of art, such as a painting or sculpture, would have been available to a much smaller audience. Their authenticity, and relative unavailability, allowed them to retain their ritual value. Benjamin says, “But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artitic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics.” I have been thinking about the relationship between politics in art and the caption of a photo. This is no longer art for art’s sake…in fact, a caption is the death of art for art’s sake, because it gives specific directions to the viewer. And, Benjamin points out, “The directives…soon become even more explicit and imperative in the film where the meaning of each single picture appears to be prescribed by the sequence of all the preceding ones.” What I’m wondering is: Can art exist without some sort of political agenda in an age of mechanical reproduction?

Photographic Reproduction

smaldona — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:09:59 +0000

Since reading Benjamin’s article for the first time, the volleyball image in the attachment has been burned into my head with regard to photographic reproduction. Benjamin states “And photographic reproduction, with the aid of certain processes, such as enlargement or slow motion, can capture images which escape natural vision. Similar to what Emma explained in class with regard to her project, it’s amazing what new media can ADD rather than what is lost from it. As good as a spectator’s eyesight may be, there is no way anyone would be able to see the deformity of the volleyball as it hits the players arm. Yet what an amazing image it is!

The Art of Storytelling

nihaadz — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:51:08 +0000

Imagine: it’s thanksgiving at Max’s house and his entire family is gathered around the dinner table. There’s mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, aunts, uncles, and many cousins. Aunt Kate has had a bit too much of the bubbly stuff and decides to tell the story of the summer Max’s dad, her elder brother, met Max’s mother. Max’s mother was into music and bands, so his dad decided to grow his hair, buy the funky clothes, and join a band. Max giggles because he has never seen his father in anything other than his starched professional look, but this story allows him to imagine, for once in his life, his father in a different light. That night, through Aunt Kate’s story, he is allowed to experience his father as his younger self, rather than the man he is now.
This, as Benjamin writes in The Storyteller, is the function of a story teller: “The storyteller takes what he tells from experience – his own or that reported by others. And he in turn makes it the experience of those who are listening to his tale” (87). The storyteller takes experiences foreign to his audience, such as Max’s father being in a band, and somehow makes it their own; by his storytelling, he allows them to experience what they have not experienced for themselves. Benjamin claims that storyteller is one who “has already become something remote from us” (83) because no one really professionally practices the art of storytelling any longer. However, from my example above, and from our knowledge of the world, we can see that storytelling is too ingrained in us to be easily dismissed, even over multiple generations of “decline.” A mother will tell her child a story to teach him stealing is bad; a boss will threaten his employee with a story of a past employee who didn’t do his work; a teacher will enlighten her students about their abilities through the story of a previous student; a parent will regale their audience with the antics of their extraordinarily gifted 3-year old, all in order to impart the “wisdom” Benjamin so characterizes storytelling with. The art of storytelling may not exist to a great extent, but the act of storytelling certainly does. And this, perhaps, is what needs to survive and pass on, even if the ways and media of telling stories change.

The Collapse of Language in All Media

csothbeg144 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:38:47 +0000

Today, my mother sent a letter to my best friend trying to comfort her over the death of her mother. She signed the letter “LOL, Jen” thinking LOL stood for “lots of love.” FML
#1429978 (106) – 04/28/2009 at 5:51pm by unlolable4321 – misc – I agree, your life is f***ed (17115) – you deserved that one (1022)sharethis

http://www.fmylife.com/

Benjamin’s Authority and Authenticity

sgan1 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:28:19 +0000

Benjamin talks about the relation between authority and authenticity in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (220). Benjamin wonders whether reproduction of art makes it less authentic, but what could he mean by authenticity? If, by authentic, he only means it’s unique existence at a certain place in time and space, then yes, I would agree that nothing but the original may be authentic. But in this current age of technology and the internet, there is little that can claim to be truly authentic and unique. Authenticity, in my opinion, is just something that people attach to objects in order for them to be viewed in a certain way. If we had no contact but to authentic art, then most of the people in the world would not know what the Mona Lisa looks like or what Uncle Tom’s Cabin is. Without reproduction, many works of art could never be known or seen.

Then we have another definition of authenticity, being “the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning,” and this is getting into the aura of an object. The aura of an object, regardless if it has been reproduced or not, is what garners authority to an object. So really, authenticity has no place to in regard to authority. You can have an intangible idea that holds much authority.

A film about text

geunhae — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:37:55 +0000

helvetica

“Can a lowly typeface be ‘an emblem of the machine age, a harbinger of globalization and an ally of modern art’s impulse toward innovation, simplicity and abstraction’?”

Aura in the age of irreducible reproduction

csothbeg144 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:56:57 +0000

Benjamin certainly expressed an anxiety of the loss of the aura in a work whose original-ness gets “lost” or blocked off from the work when it is mechanically produced. The aura: the space between what it is and what it is named or described as; the (infinitely, perhaps) small void of a hand-crafted work…

But it is certainly hard to say if mechanical reproduction is anything more than an even more violently torn space between an original and those reproduced copies. Indeed, as I type these words, (deleted word here, grammar error there) once I click “Publish,” it will be lost even to me, the author. I wonder if in the space traditionally reserved for the original there must be a collapsed sense of meaning: a transcendence made in order to cope with the loss of aura.

Transcendence might be a simple as acceptance: acceptance in the age of violent isolation.

Benjamin and The Actor’s Aura

kyletmoore — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:51:46 +0000

I felt Benjamin’s discussion of the concept of ‘aura’ was most provocative when relating to the differences between film and theater. That an actor’s performance, because he is present to give it, has an aura is an interesting distinction. We do not assume, intuitively, that there is a significant difference between acting for a camera and acting for an audience, but Benjamin accurately points out that “the audience’s identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera. Consequently, the audience takes the position of the camera; its appearance is that of testing.” This relationship fundamentally changes the way the performance is recieved, and puts the director (or cameraman) in a unique position to control or mediate that reception.

Because we understand at some level that film is a reproduction and “by no means all of a piece”, we view film with a pre-existing set of assumptions, fundamentally different from those attached to theater. Yet, despite it’s lack of aura film is nonetheless still a thriving art form. Indeed, as Benjamin points out, “art has left the realm of the ‘beautiful semblance’ which, so far, had been taken to be the only sphere where art could thrive.”

While I consider myself an optomist when it comes to technological advancement, I am saddened to some extent that so many see film as the successor of theater. Something is definitely lost when scaring an actor with a gunshot, as in Benjamin’s example, becomes more efficient than the capability of an actor to produce a unique performance.

Benjamin and modern film

lindkess — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:50:25 +0000

In reading Benjamin’s essay, I found myself wondering how Benjamin would have felt could he have seen today’s film industry in action. As the process of creating a film involves various stages, each step of its creation degenerates the novelty and authenticity that it may have once embodied.

In creating and marketing a film, the stages are as such:

1) Writing/drafting of the script
2) Handing over of creative control to directors, producers, and actors
3) Filming
4) Marketing in cinemas
5) Marketing to home environments

I suspect that, could he have witnessed this process, Benjamin would have considered only the very first draft of the script to have any relation to “aura.” This is the purest form of the piece of art, though it has yet to approach what its final appearance will be.

As time continues, editors and producers begin to change the piece, and thus, it becomes more available to a broader market, and they each have their own interpretations of its meaning. It loses all position in time and space, as it really has no definitive point at which it was created (as various pieces of it have been created at different times). By the time the film reaches cinemas, it has been handled and changed by hundreds of creative visions, including the writers, actors, publicists, directors, producers, etc. There are multiple copies of the film available not only in its filmed form, but in scripts and even alternate takes of the scenes which are in the movie itself.

As time goes on, these films are then released to an even larger market- that of home distribution. By selling it in stores or making it readily available on network television, the perpetuators of the piece find themselves pulling further and further away from Benjamin’s beloved “aura”; instead, they have a widely-known piece of “art” which has been mechanically reproduced to the point that not only does it lack a true position in time, it becomes a reproduction so shoddy that it is virtually unrecognizable from the piece of art it was at its conception.