The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

In this reading Walter talks extensively about how the mechanical reproduction of artwork affects both it and the way we experience it. He talks about how works of art seem to possess an ‘aura’ and how that aura is lost on reproductions of that work. Benjamin states:

“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be”.

From Benjamin’s perspective the aura represents the originality and authenticity of the work of art that has not and cannot, be reproduced. An image of a painting can never truly capture the feeling of seeing it in person. The idea of how context affects meaning is also mentioned, that depending on where we see it, or how, also affects the way in which we find meaning in it. Even if we could reproduce a work of art, stroke by stroke, we cannot reproduce the context in which it was created for. It is still just a copy.

I found his notes on film and its inability to possess an aura a little confusing and I did not really understand much of what was said. However, I personally do find that films can have a certain ‘aura’ about them. Even today I still get a certain feeling when watching certain films that I love, however, it does seem that films attempt to capture a number of feelings and I tend to resonate with a particular one or a certain few. Much like to each individual there is a certain moment in the film that they love most or find most memorable. Perhaps that is their point of ‘aura’ experience. Perhaps the ‘aura’ for some lies in going to see it at the cinema as opposed to watching it at home.

I really enjoyed Benjamin’s writing and how it encourages us to question reality and, in a way, the profession of graphic design as a visual communication tool. If we cannot question it, how can we hope to justify its use?