Walter Benjamin’s The Art of Work in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Analysis & Criticism
Abstract:
Introduction and Bibliographical Overview
Walter Benjamin is one of the most famous twentieth century German literacy and cultural critic and known in the fields of humanities, cultural studies, media theory and art history. Benjamin was born in 1892 to a Jewish upper middle class family. His father was a successful art dealer and antiquarian. He absolved his studies in philosophy, art history and German studies at the Humboldt University of Berlin successfully and decided upon an academic career. Although Benjamin researched ambitiously, he soon encountered a decisive academic caesura: The Goethe University of Frankfurt rejected his postdoctoral thesis “The Origins of German Tragedy” as incomprehensible.[1]
When Hitler came to power and the persecutions of Jewish people started such occurrences represented another decisive private caesura in the life of Walter Benjamin. As a consequence of the events in Germany, Benjamin decided to immigrate to Paris in 1933 where he worked for Horkheimers “Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung” from 1934 onwards. In 1936 Benjamin published his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” which is until today his most famous book beside the “Arcades Project”.[2]
“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” represents a media theoretical and cultural policy analyse whose main thesis is that the uniqueness of a work of art or art itself and its reception gets destroyed by modern technical reproduction methods. Such new technical reproduction methods are especially a phenomenon of modern industrialisation and notably capitalism. Moreover, especially the invention of photography and film which had a breakthrough in the first half of the twentieth century and which were since then accessible for a broad audience, changed the perception of a work of art tremendously and strongly contributed to the destruction of its uniqueness. However, this is not only due to modern technical reproduction but also due to a different collective depiction of reality and thus due to a changed collective perception. Ultimately, a work of art loses its “Aura” – a decisive term/idea in Benjamins’ essay. As a further consequence the social function of media in general changes. According to Benjamin, the new collective aesthetics which is a result of modern reproduction offers the opportunity of an emancipatory politicisation of the masses on the one hand, but on the other hand this also hides the danger of political adsorption. This needs to be seen in the historical context of Walter Benjamin as the arising fascism successfully abused such danger.[3]
The rise of fascism in Europe was the political backdrop of Benjamin’s essay – and it was also his death sentence. When Nazi-Germany defeated France, Benjamin tried to flee to the United States of America but was stopped at Portbou in Spain which was under the control of the fascistic Franco Regime. When his passage was refused, Benjamin committed suicide with an overdose of morpheme for fear of falling into the hands of the Gestapo. Benjamin’s friend Berthold Brecht called his death the first real loss that Hitler had caused to German literature.[4]
While Benjamin was never able to secure academic employment during lifetime he represents one of the most important German intellectuals in the domains of Marxist aesthetic and cultural criticism today. This assignment aims at giving a brief summary and overview over the main aspects of Walter Benjamins “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. Especially central aspects of the essay shall be elucidated: The withering of the ‘aura’ and the change of art perception through photography and film which leads to a loss of the ‘aura’ of a certain work of art, too. Both occurrences are a phenomenon of the modern age and are a result of modern technical reproduction methods according to Benjamin. Considering such explanations, it is tried to explain the conjunction between modern reproduction methods, the withering of the ‘aura’, art and politics in Fascism as emphasized by Benjamin. Furthermore, Benjamin’s term of the ‘aura’ was not free of critics and Theodor Adorno, beside Brecht maybe one of the most known friends of Benjamin during his lifetime, did criticize Benjamin’s idea and understanding of the ‘aura’. Therefore, the criticism of Adorno and how his understanding differentiates from the one Benjamins regarding the term ‘aura’ shall be treated and elucidated at last.
Based on the evaluated aspects and on the critical considerations of Benjamins’ “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, the outcomes are summarised and a conclusion is drawn.
