Benjamin talks about how original manual reproduction (forgery mostly), the original preserved its authority, but this is not so for mechanical reproduction. In the case of manual reproduction, reproduction is occurring in the same medium as the original-- a forged painting of an original painting for example. In the case of mechanical reproduction, a photograph of a painting could be considered a reproduction, although not a forgery. How does this difference influence the impact of a reproduction on the authenticity or "aura" of the original?
In speaking about the nature of photography, Barthes says that a photograph is "at no time a reduction (in the mathematical sense of the term). In order to move from the reality to its photograph it is in no way necessary to divide up this reality into units and to constitute these units as signs..." What would Barthes think about digital photography where pixels are exactly the breaking down of the image into units that represent particular parts of the image? Does this, as opposed to darkroom processes, fundamentally change the nature of the continuity of the message?
It is interesting that the uniqueness of the work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. In other articles we have read such as Clarke and Burger meaning comes from taking something out of context and arranging the fragmented pieces. Why does history keep the aura alive for some works but destroying history creates meaning in others? Is a “new” aura created in the new works?
Furthermore with the idea of the work of art being inseparable from the fabric of tradition; if the tradition is not known how does that affect Benjamin’s idea of the work losing aura through reproduction? If I did not know what the Mona Lisa was and saw it constantly repeated as an image it wouldn’t mean much to me until someone explained that it was a famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci that was at the Louvre. This might add meaning but it wouldn’t mean much as it would to an Art or Art History major who is familiar with the work in more depth. How does the amount of aura fluctuate based on the historical knowledge one has?
Walter Benjamin seems to argue that mechanical reproduction destroys the auratic nature of art. When viewing contemporary images/films, this idea can be fairly easily understood... with thousands of videos at our fingertips the distance between ourselves and works of art does indeed collapse. One example that comes to mind is the recent youtube sensation of Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent. As a live performance, Boyle's singing moved some to tears; and was certainly a very different experience for the 200 spectators watching it live than for the 21 million internet users across the globe who got to pause, rewind, fast forward and rewatch the performance afterwards on youtube. Benjamin's point about the relationship between mechanical reproduction and aura does seem relevant, but is there a way that mechanical reproduction can actually create aura where there wasn't aura before? An example that comes to mind here is a 16 mm clip of a home movie shot in the 1930's. This film shows a woman rowing on a boat eighty years ago, the cameraman had her right in front of him and surely did not experience an aura from her, but watching the film today we get a very different experience and very much feel an auratic distance. This home video, however, was never intended as an artwork, so could this effect be an example of what Benjamin refers to as the shift from "ritual" and "production" to "politics" that results from mechanical reproduction? deDuve in "The Photograph as Paradox" talks about the association between photographs and death. She separates photography into time-lapse and snapshot, but affirms that they both still inherently deal with death. It can be easily understood why a painting of a person is less "deathly" than a photograph of a person, but when dealing with snapshot photography that documents an event, is there a way that process painting can also achieve this same deathly context? It seems that with the snapshot, rather than it's detailed representation of the event making it deathly, it is the instantaneousness and temporality of the shot that makes it deathly. Can a process painting then achieve this same deathly association? A painting created by an instantaneous whisk of paint on canvas that documents an irretrievable moment in time of the artist's gesture also acts as evidence, or artifact, can this painting then also achieve what the snapshot achieves in terms of death and trauma? Barthes talks about the relationship between the photograph and it's caption, and the loss of autonomy the photograph ultimately suffers as a result of the caption. How does this relationship compare to the that of a painting or sculpture and its title? Don't all strictly representational works lose their denotation with the addition of text or is the photograph unique in this sense because of its superior ability to represent reality?
1. Barthes writes, "The photograph professing to be a mechanical analogue of reality, its first-order message in some sort completely fills its substance and leaves no place for the development of a second-order message. Of all the structures of information, the photograph appears as the only one that is exclusively constituted and occupied by a 'denoted' message, a message which totally exhausts its mode of existence" (18). This reminds me of a work by Alfredo Jaar we were discussing in another class. if I remember correctly, Jaar did a piece where he put photo captions/text on the outside of sealed black boxes. The boxes contained the photographs the text described, but you couldn't open the boxes to see the images. It seems like this is sort of a reaction against what Barthes describes. We can't make much meaning from a photograph when it is merely a mechanical reproduction of reality; there is no room for a message or meaning. Adding text seems to be an antidote. It is so much of an antidote sometimes that the photograph itself becomes unnecessary; the text could totally replace the image. Is that the function of the image caption, in newspapers and other outlets? Does text always fill in the silence of what the image can't say? What implications does this have for photographic "objectivity"?
2. Benjamin writes, "The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated" (218). This is true of journalistic photographs, especially when they depict violent or tragic events. The more we see images of carnage in Iraq or of Darfur refugees, for example, the less these things mean to us. We become sensitized, and the image content becomes easier to ignore. This another implication of the Jaar piece I mentioned. By hiding images and relying solely on text, he preserves the integrity o of image content. However, can text actually prevent the degradation incurred by mechanical reproduction? Headlines seem to lose their potency the more we see them, as well. Is mechanical reproduction a threat just to artwork, or does it also have negative consequences for writing/storytelling?
If a photograph of a painting is considered to be mechanical reproduction of the painting, which loses the paintings aura, what does this say about the contemporary artist who took photographs of people looking at paintings in museums (such as Caillebotte’s “Paris Street; A Rainy Day”). Do these photographs lack an aura? Only partially lack an aura? Do they recreate an aura? Do they give any new meaning to the painting?
Benjamin argues that photographs such as journalistic photographs destroy the impact events have on us over time. What happens when we see additional photographs in a series where one particular photograph made front pages nation wide? Do the different scenes and angles bring new meaning to the original photograph? Is it possible to bring back meaning to a photograph or event?
Benjamin argues that mechanical reproduction kills the aura created by original works of art. I can't tell if he thinks this is bad or good, but it seems like he's a little unhappy about it. Like every new invention, mechanical reproduction has good and bad consequences. As new technologies completely re-shape our society (as opposed to having society + the printing press, the invention of the printing press created a whole new society) we roll with the punches, and I don't think art is threatened. Reproduction may have depreciated the aura of the Mona Lisa, but it has created aura for other works, such as Dorthea Lange's "Migrant Mother".
Barthes ideas on the content of the photographic message remind me of Neil Postman, who has said of photography, "photography is a language that speaks only in particularities. Its vocabulary of images is limited to concrete representation. Unlike words and sentences, the photograph does not present to us an idea or concept about the world, except as we use language itself to convert the image to idea."... "The universe offers no such categories or simplifications; only flux and infinite variety. The photograph documents and celebrates the particularities of this infinite variety. Language makes them comprehensible." Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like Postman has articulated the same concept of the content of the message of a photograph rather clearly and concisely in comparison to Barthes.
I'm not entirely sure I understand Benjamin's concept of "aura". what are the restrictions on this? There is clearly a difference between a drawing of an apple, a photo of an apple, and seeing the apple sitting on the desk in front of you. but let's extend this a little bit: imagine we can mechanically reproduce the apple 3 dimensionally so that every molecule is in exactly the same place as it was in the original. the "new" apple is not the original, but it is an exact replica. Does it also have the "aura" that another mechanical reproduction lacks? if not, what is the significance of the aura? what is missing from the "new" apple? Barthes writes "the photographic paradox can then be seen as the coexistence of two messages, the one without a code, the other with a code..." (pg 19) and then he discusses the effects of trickery, posing, etc. which can embed one of these messsges in the other. after doctoring a photograph in one or more of these ways, can it really be said that the photograph is a copy of reality? how is "a copy of reality" different than a copy of controlled reality?
Benjamin writes about original artworks losing their aura or originality once mechanically reproduced. But what about pictures that have gained aura because of the over-reproduction of the images, for example, the Mona Lisa? Does over-reproduction create a new aura?
Barthes indicates that there is little second meaning or connotative meaning behind the photograph as a representation of reality without additive text. Does this include images that are manipulated and distorted using photoshop or special lenses that intend to skew reality? In some ways, Barthes is correct. Spencer Finch had a piece where an undeveloped photo remained in a photo box and hung on the wall. Without textual guidance, the viewer would have no idea what the piece is about anyway. With the text, the viewer must decide whether they believe if there is an undeveloped photograph in the box that Finch took.
Benjamin analyzes how mechanical reproduction destroys the aura, or the uniqueness and authenticity. Does he view the withering of the aura as an inherently negative or positive? On the one hand, if the mystique of the “original” is broken down, if the work of art is torn from the tradition of which it was a part, then it loses its false importance- “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual" and that the function of art “begins to be based on another practice—politics”. Does this mean that art for art’s sake, the theologizing of art, is rejected for artistic production that serves a purpose with respect to the political struggles of the time? On the other hand, Benjamin notes how false consciousness is maintained by the new media, which would appear to be a problematic practice.
Benjamin wrote this article in 1936, with the political backdrop of facism. His historical materialist method, as I remember, specifically involved an understanding and analysis of past and future in the present. To focus on fragments meant to relate those fragments to the broader social context. In 1936, artists could no longer afford to stand above the social struggle and look down- artists had to choose sides. Benjamin saw that art was not innocent, that every artist living in those years had to choose between the fascist aestheticization of politics and the communist politicization of art (which I remember was discussed in a preface to this piece). How does the advent of photography and film tie into facist politics? How did they utilize these mediums? Did their usage bring the aura back into play? Benjamin asserts that the very dominance of the cinema by capital could hide and subvert the use value of film. Is the new artist then made into a new cult figure, the audience mystified further through "illusion promoting spectacles and dubious speculations”? Is the propaganda value of film in fact greater than that of a painting or another more static art form that invites the spectator to contemplation?
Barthes write that the purely ‘denotative’ status of the photograph…has every chance of being mythical” because we take the meaning of the photograph to be natural and obvious and trustworthy when in fact it may conceal social beliefs and attitudes worth noticing and questioning. He makes this claim for two reasons: first, the photograph has been selected, positioned, captioned, sized according to political, ideological and aesthetic norms, second, the photograph is “read” by viewers in conjunction with “signs” already in circulation. Can any photograph then be truly documentary? How does this tie into the photograph's potential propoganda usage, for example by facism? This reminds me of our discussion in 270 about how a photograph is simultaneously democratic, equal, and undiscerning in what it captures, and yet may also select subject matter and be manipulated- it is both an exact physical index and yet may be more than that.
1) Benjamin concludes his article with the claim that "To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility." There seems to be a conflict in the manner in which Benjamin words this statement by generalizing all artwork that is reproduced. Though great works, such as Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" are highly reproduced, the initial purpose of its creation was not intended for reproduction. Additionally, how would photographs of performance art, such as Chris Burden's "Shoot" be classified as a "work of art designed for reproducibility?" How does such an example fit into Benjamin's narrow perspective?
2) Barthes makes a point in his argument for photography that though it "is not the reality...[it] is its perfect analogen." This statement also seems flawed by overgeneralizing works of photography as whole. Again, how are photographs of performance artists as Chris Burden "perfect analogens" of the original?
Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction asserts that mechanical reproduction of tangible, original artworks "substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence," and believes that in doing so, "destroy[s] its aura." Although this is a valid point - certainly a 8 X 10 color print of Starry Night has not nearly the same texture, color, and over-whelming authority of the original - it seems rather pretentious. Is reproduction so terrible if it lets those who wouldn't typically be able to appreciate certain works become aware of them? Can someone still fully appreciate a work without having seen it in the flesh or is art appreciate really centered around privilege? Barthes' The Photographic Message seems to be an expanded commentary on the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Interestingly, the photographic is typically understood as a signifier of truth, as an ultimate proof, verification, or reinforcement of a particular idea. Barthes argues that the truth of the photograph is hardly simple, if it could even be a truth at all, believing the photographic connotation is an "institutional activity. . .its function is to integrate man, to reassure him." However, he also cites the 1951 senatorial election scandal of a fake photograph of Senator Tydings and Communist leader Browder. In this digital age wherein the youth is practically expected to be photo-shop-literate, both in regards to the software's use and in recognition of photographic manipulation, how does youth culture perceive the photograph? Does youth culture understand the photograph as a truth as their parents and grand-parents had or do they understand it as a possibility, a could-be fraud? How does this affect ze's ability to keep faith in the world around zer when ze is positioned for a suspicious stance?
Benjamin focuses on one of the most prevalent questions facing artists today: in an age when digital imaging and mechanical processes are so widespread, how does the production of worth gain or lose value based on the medium in which it is produced? A painting intrinsically has more value than a photograph, based solely on the medium and the notion that the photograph can always be reproduced, whereas the painting cannot. Furthermore, the issue of editions and prints becomes of vital importance to reproduction; the ability of the artist to control the value of his work based on the quantity and output of said work has become intrinsic to the process of creation.
Barthes talks about how a photograph's meaning changes depending on its context, which is evidently true. Even more interesting is how the treatment of a particular photograph can affect its interpretation. The most obvious example is, of course, the photograph of OJ Simpson on the TIME and Newsweek covers in 1994. Despite the fact that both magazines are fairly similar in political agenda, the presentation of the photographs evidently skewed the readership in a particular direction.
I am also particularly interested in his break-down of the photograph as a historical event, and the fact that we always interpret a photograph from a historical perspective different than that of the moment of the image's conception. Is there a way, then, that a photograph can ever be considered objective, even if the photographer had no intention of capturing the image in any way other than the way he first saw it? It's already been subjected to the photographer's decision in pointing the lens.
Barthes' article had me thinking about Sherry Levine's work and her photographs after Ed Weston. In a way her work relates directly to what he is speaking about, in terms of text, captions and their importance in informing a work. But what his article does not touch on specifically is this idea of reappropriation of images. What would he say of the distance that Levine creates between her photograph and a photograph by Ed Weston? Also, even if a photograph is traumatic, can you ever really get away from the fact that the photograph is being framed by someone behind the lens? The fact that someone is still choosing the subject matter? Can only personal experience facilitated by chance encounter be objective?
Benjamin's article reminded me of the work done by abstract expressionists in comparison to artists like Warhol or Christopher Wool. He says that "authenticity" has its roots in "ritual function," and that when the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable, the function of art is reversed. What would he think of work that is not done by the artist themselves, but is produced by instructions and hired workers like Koons' work? I know he was references photography specifically, but what about works that are still tangible, made, discrete, maybe even unique, but are not performed by the artist themselves?
Walter Benjamin, I believe, is making the argument that photography is more imitation of art that a pure art form itself. If this is the case, I have a problem with this theory. Photography is a mechanical reproduction of life as an art form, not a mechanical reproduction of art. He does say, however, that, "process reproduction can bring out the aspects of the original that are unattainable to the naked eye yet accessible to the lens." But then photography should be classified as just process reproduction. To me mechanical reproduction would be scanning a photograph or taking a digital photo of a c-print.
Benjamin also says, "from a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the 'authentic' print makes no sense." Again, Benjamin wrote this in 1936. Only chemical prints can be made and a c-print is a stand-alone art form. How can he disregard this aspect of photography as a way of imitation? I feel like he would have a stronger argument if he wrote this essay today and used examples of digital photography, and scanning and printing.
14 comments:
Benjamin talks about how original manual reproduction (forgery mostly), the original preserved its authority, but this is not so for mechanical reproduction. In the case of manual reproduction, reproduction is occurring in the same medium as the original-- a forged painting of an original painting for example. In the case of mechanical reproduction, a photograph of a painting could be considered a reproduction, although not a forgery. How does this difference influence the impact of a reproduction on the authenticity or "aura" of the original?
In speaking about the nature of photography, Barthes says that a photograph is "at no time a reduction (in the mathematical sense of the term). In order to move from the reality to its photograph it is in no way necessary to divide up this reality into units and to constitute these units as signs..." What would Barthes think about digital photography where pixels are exactly the breaking down of the image into units that represent particular parts of the image? Does this, as opposed to darkroom processes, fundamentally change the nature of the continuity of the message?
It is interesting that the uniqueness of the work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. In other articles we have read such as Clarke and Burger meaning comes from taking something out of context and arranging the fragmented pieces. Why does history keep the aura alive for some works but destroying history creates meaning in others? Is a “new” aura created in the new works?
Furthermore with the idea of the work of art being inseparable from the fabric of tradition; if the tradition is not known how does that affect Benjamin’s idea of the work losing aura through reproduction? If I did not know what the Mona Lisa was and saw it constantly repeated as an image it wouldn’t mean much to me until someone explained that it was a famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci that was at the Louvre. This might add meaning but it wouldn’t mean much as it would to an Art or Art History major who is familiar with the work in more depth. How does the amount of aura fluctuate based on the historical knowledge one has?
Walter Benjamin seems to argue that mechanical reproduction destroys the auratic nature of art. When viewing contemporary images/films, this idea can be fairly easily understood... with thousands of videos at our fingertips the distance between ourselves and works of art does indeed collapse. One example that comes to mind is the recent youtube sensation of Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent. As a live performance, Boyle's singing moved some to tears; and was certainly a very different experience for the 200 spectators watching it live than for the 21 million internet users across the globe who got to pause, rewind, fast forward and rewatch the performance afterwards on youtube. Benjamin's point about the relationship between mechanical reproduction and aura does seem relevant, but is there a way that mechanical reproduction can actually create aura where there wasn't aura before? An example that comes to mind here is a 16 mm clip of a home movie shot in the 1930's. This film shows a woman rowing on a boat eighty years ago, the cameraman had her right in front of him and surely did not experience an aura from her, but watching the film today we get a very different experience and very much feel an auratic distance. This home video, however, was never intended as an artwork, so could this effect be an example of what Benjamin refers to as the shift from "ritual" and "production" to "politics" that results from mechanical reproduction?
deDuve in "The Photograph as Paradox" talks about the association between photographs and death. She separates photography into time-lapse and snapshot, but affirms that they both still inherently deal with death. It can be easily understood why a painting of a person is less "deathly" than a photograph of a person, but when dealing with snapshot photography that documents an event, is there a way that process painting can also achieve this same deathly context? It seems that with the snapshot, rather than it's detailed representation of the event making it deathly, it is the instantaneousness and temporality of the shot that makes it deathly. Can a process painting then achieve this same deathly association? A painting created by an instantaneous whisk of paint on canvas that documents an irretrievable moment in time of the artist's gesture also acts as evidence, or artifact, can this painting then also achieve what the snapshot achieves in terms of death and trauma?
Barthes talks about the relationship between the photograph and it's caption, and the loss of autonomy the photograph ultimately suffers as a result of the caption. How does this relationship compare to the that of a painting or sculpture and its title? Don't all strictly representational works lose their denotation with the addition of text or is the photograph unique in this sense because of its superior ability to represent reality?
1. Barthes writes, "The photograph professing to be a mechanical analogue of reality, its first-order message in some sort completely fills its substance and leaves no place for the development of a second-order message. Of all the structures of information, the photograph appears as the only one that is exclusively constituted and occupied by a 'denoted' message, a message which totally exhausts its mode of existence" (18). This reminds me of a work by Alfredo Jaar we were discussing in another class. if I remember correctly, Jaar did a piece where he put photo captions/text on the outside of sealed black boxes. The boxes contained the photographs the text described, but you couldn't open the boxes to see the images. It seems like this is sort of a reaction against what Barthes describes. We can't make much meaning from a photograph when it is merely a mechanical reproduction of reality; there is no room for a message or meaning. Adding text seems to be an antidote. It is so much of an antidote sometimes that the photograph itself becomes unnecessary; the text could totally replace the image. Is that the function of the image caption, in newspapers and other outlets? Does text always fill in the silence of what the image can't say? What implications does this have for photographic "objectivity"?
2. Benjamin writes, "The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated" (218). This is true of journalistic photographs, especially when they depict violent or tragic events. The more we see images of carnage in Iraq or of Darfur refugees, for example, the less these things mean to us. We become sensitized, and the image content becomes easier to ignore. This another implication of the Jaar piece I mentioned. By hiding images and relying solely on text, he preserves the integrity o of image content. However, can text actually prevent the degradation incurred by mechanical reproduction? Headlines seem to lose their potency the more we see them, as well. Is mechanical reproduction a threat just to artwork, or does it also have negative consequences for writing/storytelling?
If a photograph of a painting is considered to be mechanical reproduction of the painting, which loses the paintings aura, what does this say about the contemporary artist who took photographs of people looking at paintings in museums (such as Caillebotte’s “Paris Street; A Rainy Day”). Do these photographs lack an aura? Only partially lack an aura? Do they recreate an aura? Do they give any new meaning to the painting?
Benjamin argues that photographs such as journalistic photographs destroy the impact events have on us over time. What happens when we see additional photographs in a series where one particular photograph made front pages nation wide? Do the different scenes and angles bring new meaning to the original photograph? Is it possible to bring back meaning to a photograph or event?
Benjamin argues that mechanical reproduction kills the aura created by original works of art. I can't tell if he thinks this is bad or good, but it seems like he's a little unhappy about it. Like every new invention, mechanical reproduction has good and bad consequences. As new technologies completely re-shape our society (as opposed to having society + the printing press, the invention of the printing press created a whole new society) we roll with the punches, and I don't think art is threatened. Reproduction may have depreciated the aura of the Mona Lisa, but it has created aura for other works, such as Dorthea Lange's "Migrant Mother".
Barthes ideas on the content of the photographic message remind me of Neil Postman, who has said of photography, "photography is a language that speaks only in particularities. Its vocabulary of images is limited to concrete representation. Unlike words and sentences, the photograph does not present to us an idea or concept about the world, except as we use language itself to convert the image to idea."... "The universe offers no such categories or simplifications; only flux and infinite variety. The photograph documents and celebrates the particularities of this infinite variety. Language makes them comprehensible." Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like Postman has articulated the same concept of the content of the message of a photograph rather clearly and concisely in comparison to Barthes.
I'm not entirely sure I understand Benjamin's concept of "aura". what are the restrictions on this? There is clearly a difference between a drawing of an apple, a photo of an apple, and seeing the apple sitting on the desk in front of you. but let's extend this a little bit: imagine we can mechanically reproduce the apple 3 dimensionally so that every molecule is in exactly the same place as it was in the original. the "new" apple is not the original, but it is an exact replica. Does it also have the "aura" that another mechanical reproduction lacks? if not, what is the significance of the aura? what is missing from the "new" apple?
Barthes writes "the photographic paradox can then be seen as the coexistence of two messages, the one without a code, the other with a code..." (pg 19) and then he discusses the effects of trickery, posing, etc. which can embed one of these messsges in the other. after doctoring a photograph in one or more of these ways, can it really be said that the photograph is a copy of reality? how is "a copy of reality" different than a copy of controlled reality?
Benjamin writes about original artworks losing their aura or originality once mechanically reproduced. But what about pictures that have gained aura because of the over-reproduction of the images, for example, the Mona Lisa? Does over-reproduction create a new aura?
Barthes indicates that there is little second meaning or connotative meaning behind the photograph as a representation of reality without additive text. Does this include images that are manipulated and distorted using photoshop or special lenses that intend to skew reality? In some ways, Barthes is correct. Spencer Finch had a piece where an undeveloped photo remained in a photo box and hung on the wall. Without textual guidance, the viewer would have no idea what the piece is about anyway. With the text, the viewer must decide whether they believe if there is an undeveloped photograph in the box that Finch took.
Benjamin analyzes how mechanical reproduction destroys the aura, or the uniqueness and authenticity. Does he view the withering of the aura as an inherently negative or positive? On the one hand, if the mystique of the “original” is broken down, if the work of art is torn from the tradition of which it was a part, then it loses its false importance- “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual" and that the function of art “begins to be based on another practice—politics”. Does this mean that art for art’s sake, the theologizing of art, is rejected for artistic production that serves a purpose with respect to the political struggles of the time? On the other hand, Benjamin notes how false consciousness is maintained by the new media, which would appear to be a problematic practice.
Benjamin wrote this article in 1936, with the political backdrop of facism. His historical materialist method, as I remember, specifically involved an understanding and analysis of past and future in the present. To focus on fragments meant to relate those fragments to the broader social context. In 1936, artists could no longer afford to stand above the social struggle and look down- artists had to choose sides. Benjamin saw that art was not innocent, that every artist living in those years had to choose between the fascist aestheticization of politics and the communist politicization of art (which I remember was discussed in a preface to this piece). How does the advent of photography and film tie into facist politics? How did they utilize these mediums? Did their usage bring the aura back into play? Benjamin asserts that the very dominance of the cinema by capital could hide and subvert the use value of film. Is the new artist then made into a new cult figure, the audience mystified further through "illusion promoting spectacles and dubious speculations”? Is the propaganda value of film in fact greater than that of a painting or another more static art form that invites the spectator to contemplation?
Barthes write that the purely ‘denotative’ status of the photograph…has every chance of being mythical” because we take the meaning of the photograph to be natural and obvious and trustworthy when in fact it may conceal social beliefs and attitudes worth noticing and questioning. He makes this claim for two reasons: first, the photograph has been selected, positioned, captioned, sized according to political, ideological and aesthetic norms, second, the photograph is “read” by viewers in conjunction with “signs” already in circulation. Can any photograph then be truly documentary? How does this tie into the photograph's potential propoganda usage, for example by facism? This reminds me of our discussion in 270 about how a photograph is simultaneously democratic, equal, and undiscerning in what it captures, and yet may also select subject matter and be manipulated- it is both an exact physical index and yet may be more than that.
1)
Benjamin concludes his article with the claim that "To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility." There seems to be a conflict in the manner in which Benjamin words this statement by generalizing all artwork that is reproduced. Though great works, such as Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" are highly reproduced, the initial purpose of its creation was not intended for reproduction. Additionally, how would photographs of performance art, such as Chris Burden's "Shoot" be classified as a "work of art designed for reproducibility?" How does such an example fit into Benjamin's narrow perspective?
2)
Barthes makes a point in his argument for photography that though it "is not the reality...[it] is its perfect analogen." This statement also seems flawed by overgeneralizing works of photography as whole. Again, how are photographs of performance artists as Chris Burden "perfect analogens" of the original?
Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction asserts that mechanical reproduction of tangible, original artworks "substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence," and believes that in doing so, "destroy[s] its aura." Although this is a valid point - certainly a 8 X 10 color print of Starry Night has not nearly the same texture, color, and over-whelming authority of the original - it seems rather pretentious. Is reproduction so terrible if it lets those who wouldn't typically be able to appreciate certain works become aware of them? Can someone still fully appreciate a work without having seen it in the flesh or is art appreciate really centered around privilege?
Barthes' The Photographic Message seems to be an expanded commentary on the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Interestingly, the photographic is typically understood as a signifier of truth, as an ultimate proof, verification, or reinforcement of a particular idea. Barthes argues that the truth of the photograph is hardly simple, if it could even be a truth at all, believing the photographic connotation is an "institutional activity. . .its function is to integrate man, to reassure him."
However, he also cites the 1951 senatorial election scandal of a fake photograph of Senator Tydings and Communist leader Browder. In this digital age wherein the youth is practically expected to be photo-shop-literate, both in regards to the software's use and in recognition of photographic manipulation, how does youth culture perceive the photograph? Does youth culture understand the photograph as a truth as their parents and grand-parents had or do they understand it as a possibility, a could-be fraud? How does this affect ze's ability to keep faith in the world around zer when ze is positioned for a suspicious stance?
Benjamin focuses on one of the most prevalent questions facing artists today: in an age when digital imaging and mechanical processes are so widespread, how does the production of worth gain or lose value based on the medium in which it is produced? A painting intrinsically has more value than a photograph, based solely on the medium and the notion that the photograph can always be reproduced, whereas the painting cannot. Furthermore, the issue of editions and prints becomes of vital importance to reproduction; the ability of the artist to control the value of his work based on the quantity and output of said work has become intrinsic to the process of creation.
Barthes talks about how a photograph's meaning changes depending on its context, which is evidently true. Even more interesting is how the treatment of a particular photograph can affect its interpretation. The most obvious example is, of course, the photograph of OJ Simpson on the TIME and Newsweek covers in 1994. Despite the fact that both magazines are fairly similar in political agenda, the presentation of the photographs evidently skewed the readership in a particular direction.
I am also particularly interested in his break-down of the photograph as a historical event, and the fact that we always interpret a photograph from a historical perspective different than that of the moment of the image's conception. Is there a way, then, that a photograph can ever be considered objective, even if the photographer had no intention of capturing the image in any way other than the way he first saw it? It's already been subjected to the photographer's decision in pointing the lens.
Barthes' article had me thinking about Sherry Levine's work and her photographs after Ed Weston. In a way her work relates directly to what he is speaking about, in terms of text, captions and their importance in informing a work. But what his article does not touch on specifically is this idea of reappropriation of images. What would he say of the distance that Levine creates between her photograph and a photograph by Ed Weston?
Also, even if a photograph is traumatic, can you ever really get away from the fact that the photograph is being framed by someone behind the lens? The fact that someone is still choosing the subject matter? Can only personal experience facilitated by chance encounter be objective?
Benjamin's article reminded me of the work done by abstract expressionists in comparison to artists like Warhol or Christopher Wool. He says that "authenticity" has its roots in "ritual function," and that when the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable, the function of art is reversed. What would he think of work that is not done by the artist themselves, but is produced by instructions and hired workers like Koons' work? I know he was references photography specifically, but what about works that are still tangible, made, discrete, maybe even unique, but are not performed by the artist themselves?
Walter Benjamin, I believe, is making the argument that photography is more imitation of art that a pure art form itself. If this is the case, I have a problem with this theory. Photography is a mechanical reproduction of life as an art form, not a mechanical reproduction of art. He does say, however, that, "process reproduction can bring out the aspects of the original that are unattainable to the naked eye yet accessible to the lens." But then photography should be classified as just process reproduction. To me mechanical reproduction would be scanning a photograph or taking a digital photo of a c-print.
Benjamin also says, "from a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the 'authentic' print makes no sense." Again, Benjamin wrote this in 1936. Only chemical prints can be made and a c-print is a stand-alone art form. How can he disregard this aspect of photography as a way of imitation? I feel like he would have a stronger argument if he wrote this essay today and used examples of digital photography, and scanning and printing.
Post a Comment