I recently embarked (and made it through) a road trip across the country with my boyfriend, and during this trip, we went to Yellowstone National Park. On the way to Yellowstone, right off of the freeway, we came across “Yellowstone Bear World;” a business predicated on creating a hyperreality, in which bears roamed free and the onlookers in their cars could interact with them as they drove through… with their windows closed. The reality is that these bears are trained and, most importantly, tamed and pretty much harmless. “Bear World” was advertised as an experience with real bears; real wildlife. The bears were very real, and I was definitely there, but I cannot say that it felt authentic. They were real bears, deer, wolves, and moose, but the experience was created and replicated for the many visitors. In relation to the authenticity of Yellowstone National Park, which has a presence in time and space, this replica of the wildlife in the park intensifies the experience mediating between the consumer/onlooker and the idea of Yellowstone National Park. I encountered three iterations of the National Park: (1) Yellowstone Bear World, (2) Yellowstone National Park, (3) Jellystone Park. The last is of little consequence, but Yogi Bear, the show about the cartoon bear, references Yellowstone Park using the name Jellystone. There is a chain of campgrounds, one of which I stayed at during my trip.
Yellowstone National Park is the most authentic of the three as it is the actual, as the original Mona Lisa is to a print of the Mona Lisa.
I wrote a paper for another class about what Benjamin calls “Aura,” and I don’t mean to double dip, but it’s very applicable:
Walter Benjamin aims to renounce mechanical reproductions as authentic art because they have no aura, or, uniqueness. This uniqueness, he postulates is a compilation of characteristics that produce a kind of essence that is the aura. In order for art to have an aura, it must have an aspect of humanity rather than merely of an apparatus such as photography or film cameras: “For the first time in the process of pictorial reproduction, photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens.” (Benjamin, 1936, 219) If the lens can produce something that the eye cannot, it cannot therefore have aura because it lacks the aspect of humanity.
Benjamin’s explains that another element of aura is that of the passage of time that can place art in history:
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. The unique existence of work of art determined by history to which it was subject to throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the origin.” (Benjamin, 1936, 220)
A piece of art’s aura, in this case can be derived from its experiences and the distance that creates between the observer and the piece of art itself. One can be three feet away from a piece of art and still experience the distance of time and be in awe of that distance. This distance, this awe, is the essence of aura, as it applies to historical works of art, it also applies to nature: “The concept of aura which was proposed above with reference to historical objects may usefully be illustrated with reference to the aura of natural ones. We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be.” (Benjamin, 1936, 222)
The problem with mechanical reproduction is the proximity it allows the observer to enjoy. The closeness of a reproduction thus is that the reproduction affects not only the experience of the replica, but depreciates the original; the authentic as well. “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.” (Benjamin, 1936, 221)
Benjamin posits that people are becoming more interested in bringing objects closer and thus eliminating the distance that allows for art to have aura: “The desire of contemporary masses to bring things ‘closer’ spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction. Every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness, its reproduction.” (Benjamin, 1936, 223)
By bringing objects closer and erasing their historical and spatial context through mechanical reproduction, something is being eliminated and that is the aura. To reproduce a piece of art is to diminish its historical importance and therefore its aura:
“And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object. One might subsume the eliminated element in the term ‘aura’ and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.” (Benjamin, 1936, 221)
Aura, in this quotation, is defined by what is lacking in reproduction, rather than something that manifested itself originally in authentic art. The question that Benjamin is asking is new in the time of its publication, as silent and sound film as well as photography were becoming increasingly prevalent, as well as politicized, but these issues remain important as art becomes more easily reproducible. The reproducibility of art through mechanical reproduction creates a situation in which brings situations closer and more uniform:
“The more intensely and flawlessly his techniques duplicate empirical objects, the easier it is today for the illusion to prevail that the outside world is the straightforward continuation of that presented on the screen. This purpose has been furthered by mechanical reproduction since the lightning takeover by the sound film.” (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1944, 126)
Benjamin takes issue with these highly reproducible forms of art, which he argues, do not have an original, and therefore no authenticity, at all:
“For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.” (Benjamin, 1936, 229)
The aura, as explicated in this passage, is something that creates an interaction between arts and the observer that has continuity and specificity that allows the artwork to emanate originality, which no replica can stand in lieu of.
Aura is a quality that is erased by mechanical reproduction and the loss of the original, and therefore authenticity. The term authenticity is comprised of a specific place and time in history that a piece of art occupies, and this specificity allows for a distance between art and the observer that mechanical reproduction aims to bridge through mechanical reproduction. Aura is the essence of originality, specificity, and authenticity in art.
In regards to the two other articles:
I found it interesting how cinema is used as a means of creating and as a representation of culture in rural India. The dynamic between these two aspects of media is well defined in the article, and while reading it, I got a sense of how cinema is a means of self-definition, representation, as well as a conversation in itself. By this I mean that these films interact with each other as well, in that they become blurred into each other as the people in the community reference cinema as a whole, not often knowing what film a saying or quotation originated from.
The article about moving on and events like 9/11 was enjoyable to read and very convincing, but I was left at the end wanted a solution for the diagnosis that he provided. Yes, we are overwhelmed with media, and therefore are moved deeply and then move on in rapid succession, but, so what? What does this mean in the way of reform? This seems like a more recent iteration of Benjamin’s work, or maybe an extension of it. Both pieces are cynical and aim to point a finger at apparatus “art” for desensitizing us, but does that mean that there is no enjoyment in it. There a cornucopia of options, choices, directions to look to see the next thing (to move on), but maybe that just means we have to learn how to decide more often and more concretely.
Bibliography:
Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. New York: Schocken Books, 1968. Print.
Original Publication Date: 1936
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New Tork: Social Studies Association, 1944.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I found all three articles to be very enlightening on mediation and its effect on all of us. I was particularly struck by Benjamin's discussion of the lack of aura of art. I believe that it is wonderful that works of art are able to be mass produced and available to almost everyone, everywhere- however, Benjamin's point of this sameness sacrificing a work's uniqueness really resonated with me. I believe this is be true, in that a work may lose its here and now, and 'aura', due to its over-availability taken out of its original ritualistic and historical context.
I also found it incredible how the one article divulged into how much we move on from one thing to the next due to mediation. I agree that we are being attacked by so many forms of information, and we are often moved by it, but we get over it quicker than we can even think about it twice. I also found it crazy, but notable, to think that the only real places anymore are accidental ones. Even places in nature are so mediated that we already create such expectations of it, and know so much about it already, that we do not even appreciate it or feel that it is a break from our busy realities. Overall I thought this week's topic was extremely stimulating and surprisingly eye-opening.
I definitely agree with Benjamin when he argues that there is nothing like an original piece of work. Whether it is in nature or a piece of artwork, the original does have what he calls an aura that cannot be reproduced by any form of technology. I recently went to the Picasso museum in Spain and even though I have seen replicas of his painting many times, the texture of the original painting and the mentality I had that they were real could not be replaced by anything. I even appreciated the imperfections of the work because it had an authenticity that could not be reproduced. In this aspect I do agree with Benjamin. However, after reading about how cinema has affected the people of Cumbum Valley and their interactions with media it made more sense to me that media like photography and video can be appreciated for its benefits independently of the original work. Benjamin argues that these works of art do not contain an aspect of humanity and cannot have an aura, but I do not understand why he uses it in such a negative connotation. Photographs and movies can be appreciated because they can capture more than what the human eye can experience. Of course a picture of the beach is not the same as the real thing, but one can benefit from the picture by visualizing and having their own experience with the picture especially if the person cannot get to the beach. Movies can influence people and help shape a culture. It is not simply a reproduction, but a means to influence and inspire thought. Although these reproductions are not “real” they can still have benefits and influence people like original pieces of work.
I agree with Benjamin’s view the replication takes away from the aura of an original work of art. There is something about being able to access a piece of art easily that takes away from the aura of seeing the original. For example, when looking at a monument such as La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain, the experience and human connection with the monument is completely different when looking at an image on the internet versus standing right in front of it and witnessing its beauty in “real time.” However, though the replication definitely takes away from the aura, I do not think that the increased ability to access these works of art correlates with a decreased appreciation of these original works. That is the feeling I got while reading the de Zengotita article. I felt that de Zengotita had the same general idea as Benjamin about increased access and overexposure of media desensitizing us to the aura of the piece. However, I don’t believe that constant exposure to a certain work can take away from the aura and feeling experienced when seeing the original. Also, even though people might not show their appreciation when looking at a replica of a famous work, it does not mean that they do not harbor a great appreciation for the original. In addition, the replica’s do serve a positive purpose for these original works because if people are not exposed to these replicas, they might not have any incentive to experience seeing the original for themselves.
I’m not sure whether or not I agree with de Zengotita or Leslie on the issue of desensitization due to overexposure of media. On one hand, I see where Leslie is coming from when she says that she doesn’t “believe that constant exposure to a certain work can take away from the aura and feeling experienced when seeing the original,” and deep inside myself I hope she’s right. However, I can’t help thinking about the experiences I’ve had in my travels as compared to photos I’ve seen online of those same locations.
In my quests for new desktop backgrounds or even just as an escape from my studies, I often find myself perusing the internet for pictures of beautiful locations all around the world. These photos often come from esteemed sources, such as National Geographic, and are titled things like “fantasy,” “paradise,” or even just “nature.” Hoping to make the most out of the image I happen to stumble upon, I select the most high-definition option and display it in full-screen mode on my laptop. It would be even more ideal if I could project the image onto a large screen in front of me, its continually increasing number of pixels and magnified size making it feel more and more real to me. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the original aura of that place’s beauty is lost in this process, and therefore I agree with Benjamin’s argument about the inherent value of art and photography as replicative. Looking at a replication, no matter how perfected, cannot be the same as actually being in that location.
But, I think our society may be so mediated at this point that many of us are now numb to these images, even when experienced first-hand. I have attempted to immerse myself in so many replicative images of beautiful locations that now, when I am fortunate enough to visit those places in person, I am not as amazed as I may have been if I hadn’t seen the photos beforehand, if I hadn’t been subject to their mediation. While the original aura of the location is probably much more present in this case, something is still missing—it is there, but I am having trouble feeling it. Thus, it seems to me that mediation eliminates the element of the unknown in these types of scenarios. I can no longer arrive at a beautiful place for the first time and be completely astonished at its uniqueness, because I have previously been half-heartedly exposed to it via the internet.
-Jessica DeBakey
It seems as though Benjamin’s view of decay of aura is the centralizing theme, and whether or not that aura is diminished through time and replication. I would have to agree with this statement. Even stepping away from famous works of art, the same idea can even be applied to people you know, or have heard of. Receiving the idea or a picture of an individual you have never met is one thing, but you can never really get the authentic feel until you are in the presence of the original; in a way, it is like some essential value has been eliminated.
In de Zengotita’s article, he made a specific claim, stating, “It’s not your fault that you are so used to being moved… so it’s not surprising that you have learned to move on so readily”. If one was to stop and think about this statement, it is in fact true. The effort that goes into capturing hearts and minds with each new developing story is grand, which then transcends into our attention and concentration being shifted from one realm to another: the concepts of distraction and instant gratification. But then again, how long are we really expected to dwell on certain pieces of information? I feel like the problem here lies somewhat in the way information is presented, suggesting to a person a sense of what they should feel versus a person discerning their feelings on their own. Of course this idea cannot be applied to all circumstances, but the majority of situations seems to flow in this manner.
Also, de Zengotita’s idea that “natural things have become their own icon” can in some way be applied to the films of Tamil rural cinema. The way in which the citizens relate themselves to movies, or proclaiming that their own life could be made into a film, seems to be an indelible part of their existence. I was a bit shocked to read about how some elders in the community were trying to circumvent the films from becoming reality by marrying off their children because of “the age of cinema.” However, I guess this idea just cycles back to the idea of media penetrating into our everyday lives.
I feel it is easy to agree that Walters Benjamin’s idea that the replication of art takes away from the aura of the original work itself. Taking a piece of art and making a copying certainly helps remember the idea behind the piece but it will not have the same impact of the original piece. You could look at a copy of the Mona Lisa and know that it’s a well-known piece of art but actually going to Musée du Louvre in Paris and seeing the original art work with your own eyes and seeing the fine detail that Leonardo Da Vinci took several years to work on, has much more meaning to it. “It is this unique existence-and nothing else-that bears the mark of the history to which the work has been subject.” Having the feeling that its originality has authenticity behind the work of art puts the copy to shame. The replica does lose its sense of aura.
I visited Yellowstone National Park and I felt that its beauty cannot be seen in a photograph but has to be seen in person in order to appreciate its natural beauty. In my travels to yelllowstone my friends and I came across a grizzly bear in a field eating berries that was near a paved road. Seeing the bear in the wild and in its natural habitat made the thrill of seeing it so much greater than going to the zoo and seeing one up close. The zoo is trying to copy how the grizzly lives in its natural habitat but it is not even close to the real thing.
-Chase Winter
These articles were really interesting to me. A lot of the conversation so far has stemmed from the Benjamin article, but I wanted to focus more on the other two articles.
At first I could not get over the culture shock that I felt after reading Professor Pandian's article. I was totally unaware of how important the movie industry is to everyday life in these parts of India. Indeed, I found this sentiment towards cinema to parallel the criticism coming out of Thomas de Zengotita's article. When de Zengotita writes about the inability to differentiate the real and unreal, I immediately thought of the countless examples in the "cinema in the countryside" article where interviewed villagers would quote movie songs or make cinematic references to describe their own feelings. These people seem to have totally embraced cinema as an extension of their own lives. As Pandian puts it, the films are “taken by rural subjects as a way of expressing the quality of their own struggles with the substance of the countryside.” To me it seems that the Hollywood-style cinema of the US operates in stark contrast to the cinema of these rural areas. While many our movies distract us from what life is like as ourselves, the movies of Indian countryside ground their viewers in their own situation. I am not sure how clear I am being, and I think the fact that I lack a very good understanding of Indian cinema is preventing me from truly exploring this to its fullest extent, but maybe someone who has a better idea of these issues can expand on what I have stated above.
In essence, my point is this: the use of cinema-graphic narratives and movie lyrics in the context of normal conversation, especially when using these things to explain one’s present situation, seems to me to be the ultimate manifestation of confusing the real and the unreal. It is almost to say that you are by nature the same as the character of a movie. Such a sentiment seems to be shared by many people interviewed in the article, demonstrated by the comments such as “my story is like a cinema story.”
While I agree with Benjamin that the reproducibility of paintings and photographs does take away a portion of an object’s aura, I disagree that the aura of both the actor and the film is affected negatively by the substitution of a camera for a live audience. From the piece on cinema in the Cumbum Valley, I thought it was pretty clear that the villagers have both accepted and bought into cinema depicting their daily lives. To quote the article, “these films are taken by the rural subjects as a way of expressing the quality of their own struggles with the substance of the countryside” (Pandian, 132). Villagers have incorporated cinematic songs, ideas, and moments (kicking feet in the water) into the fabric of their society. I find it hard to believe that there would be such depth and tradition associated with rural cinema if audiences believed the films lacked authenticity, or aura.
I agree with de Zengotita that we are desensitized to a certain extent by the proliferation of media and technology. Media does play a role in influencing thoughts and emotions. But ultimately, the individual dictates how he or she feels about a certain event based on level of personal connection and relevance to their daily lives. To say that we are now conditioned to move on solely by media removes the human element in the events de Zengotita refers to.
I found Benjamin’s discussion of the reaction of the “masses” to various types of artwork to be particularly compelling. I was struck by his statement, “And while efforts have been made to present paintings to the masses in galleries and salons, this mode of reception gives the masses no means of organizing and regulating their response,” (Benjamin, 117). This quote follows a passage discussing how the public’s reception of paintings historically occurred in a “manifoldly graduated and hierarchically mediated way,” (116).
As an individual living in a highly mediated world, Benjamin’s discussion of the opinion of the masses led me to reflect upon our current capacity to individually and uniquely react to past and present works of art. For example, the reading led me to ponder what it is that I truly appreciate about a Gustav Klimt painting. Is it my personal, unique, and almost subconscious reaction to the nearly palpable passion that I feel to be emanating from his portrayal of the human subjects; or is it the fact that his artwork must be important due to the fact that I am able to purchase a poster print of “The Kiss” at my University Barnes and Noble? Does the current capacity to mediate and reproduce basically any form of art allow for individuals to react to artwork in a manner that isn’t somewhat inspired by group thought or validation? In the present day, do people continue to create or discover completely unique themes or forms of artwork, or is the world too saturated by mediation and reproduction so as to prevent any original thought, creation, or reaction to art from actually occurring?
-Amy Wharton
Although Katzki did not discuss the de Zengotita article in length, I would have to agree with her when she mentioned that this article seemed a bit too cynical and wrongfully blamed media for desensitizing us. In the article, de Zengotita says "When you find out about the moving cursor, or hear statistics about AIDS in Africa, or see your 947th picture of a weeping fireman, you can't help but become fundamentally indifferent because you are exposed to things like this all the time". I think that overexposure can lead to a saturation in our response to an event, but I don't believe this is necessarily a downfall of media. I think that this numbness is due more to the way we live our lives. Our lives are overstimulated with tasks and activities that we disregard other things. Even if we pause and actually take notice of something occurring out in the world, we don't have the time to take action and we simply move on. It is not media's fault, in fact I feel like media gives us the ability to connect with others outside our circles. Take for example, the events of 9/11.
I'm from California and on 9/11 I remember first hearing about the attacks in my 1st period class. All we did for a week was either listen to the radio or watch the news coverage on television. No one at our middle school was directly affected by the attacks. Yet for weeks the whole school was in a melancholy state. Even as 11 year olds with no direct connections to the attacks, we were all deeply moved. If it weren't for the prevalence of media in our lives, I don't think we would have been as moved by 9/11 as we were. We would not have seen the towers fall or the faces of the people witnessing the events first hand. Of course we moved on as de Zengotita stated. But moving on is a part of life, not a product of media overload. It does not mean we stopped caring or that those images no longer affect us.
I definitely like the comments about the loss of aura, the loss of the ritualistic meaning of a piece of artwork. With reproduction, one loses the uniqueness of the work. I like how he delves into the metamorphosis of the aura. How it first began as a sort of magical symbol, i.e a piece of artwork, possessing healing powers. Then it evolved into possessing a religious meaning. In a way, he equates religion with magic. They both ascribe superpowers to beings that we cannot see. However, religion in essence represents a small step towards rational thought when compared to magic. A person has a statue of a god in his home and offers sacrifices to it daily. Even though the fruit remains in the same position that he left it the day before, he still believes that the god has accepted his offering and repeats the procedure daily. Even though, the aura is lost in most forms of photography, he does acknowledge that there is one avenue in which it hangs by the threads. He says “In the cult of remembrance of dead or absent loved ones, the cult value of the image finds its last refuge.” The photograph of dead loved ones possess a meaning. Sometimes when a person looks at the picture of the person smiling, they might feel the warmth of their embrace. They feel like that person is up there in heaven, or wherever good people rest, and is smiling at them. The picture gives them a reason to keep on going with life.
I really liked the article on the numbing of the American mind. It is true that we are constantly bombarded with lots of information. Like Dr Pandian talked about in class, these stimuli are there to distract instead of to draw ones attention to it. As stated in the article, there are many distinctions between fabrication and reality and if we focused out attention, we still possess the ability to differentiate them, just as he painstakingly did on pay 35. However, we are not inclined to do so because of the information overload. The author does not necessarily blame the individual for our short attention spans, however. Seems like it is a call to society. Nevertheless, he does not offer a solution to the problem. How do we move away from this information overload? How do we slow things down? Maybe, move to a utopian society far far away from the all encompassing reach of media. Maybe, move to mars. Problem is that we are so used to the motion that we do not realize when we experience that feeling of realness. He talks about those accidental and transitional moments, when we get the feeling of realness that we so franctically pursue. That realness no longer feels natural and so we run away from it, taking refuge in the busyness of our daily lives.
Post a Comment