I read "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" as Benjamin's draft of a prognostic theory of cinema within a larger reconsideration of the role of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Benjamin historicizes the changing role of art in different ages and studies "the developmental tendencies of art under present conditions of production" (2), for he is convinced that "during long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes
with humanity’s entire mode of existence. " (2). Before the advent of technological reproducibility, the value assigned to art was a cult and ritual value and/or an exhibition value, and art was relegated to a dimension completely separated from that of politics, but mechanical reproduction has destroyed the idea of art's aura, i.e. the traditionally idealized authenticity and precious uniqueness assigned to art creations, which originated from concepts such as creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery.
But Benjamin sees beyond the aura, beyond the realm of art pour l'art (and its Fascist instrumentalizations) that the concept of aura implicates. He sees a series of redemptive (and Communist) potentials in the new conditions of art creation and fruition. He sees that the technological reproducibility of the artwork "changes the reaction
of the masses toward art” (15) by substituting the old "unique" experience with a mass, simultaneous experience, and also by altering the usual distinction between author
and public and by altering the type of receptive attitude traditionally
expected from the audience. In this sense, Benjamin is far from, if not opposite to, Adorno's rejection of the fruition of art by masses and from his defense of art's autonomy and disinterestedness, and "The Work of Art .." can be taken as a theory of cinema that deals with questions such as the transformation of our perception of the world through cinema, the audience's identification with the camera, the collective reception-in-distraction. But it is also, more largely, a draft of a new theory of an art that "instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics" (9).
No more cult, but politics, then. And if Fascism tends to re-introduce the cult function of art (i.e. to aestheticize politics) in order to create a mass politics for which the status quo remains untouched, Communism responds by politicizing art, by formulating "revolutionary demands in the politics of art" (2). Ok, Benjamin's ending is controversial, but perhaps it is useful to consider these categories as less fixed than what they seem to be. Perhaps it is useful to consider the regressive/progressive understandings of art's function that Fascism and Communism respectively embody in Benjamin's famous formulation. Perhaps it is still useful for us to go back to this text to strengthen our understanding of an art finally beyond the aura, of a technological art of the masses that can help us change (instead of escaping from) social reality.
Post scriptum: I went to watch Alfonso Cuarón's "Gravity" yesterday, and I suspect Benjamin would have hated it. But I'll let you guess why.
Benjamin's ending is, indeed, controversial as you say. Fascism renders aesthetics. Communism politicizes art. I'm not even sure if I understand what he means. But I'll memorize his previous sentence: Mankind "self-alienation has reached such a
ReplyDeletedegree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the
first order." That's scary. Then, we'll need to find a way to avoid that pleasure; the best way, I guess, being aware of the change social reality is going through due to technology and art of the masses. For instance, as you mention in my blog, users have to become actors.