The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin (1936)

Benjamin’s main point seems to be that mechanically (and, presumably, electronically) reproduced art loses the aura of authenticity which makes it captivating, and hence is actually rendered more useful by their critical accessibility to everyone and political appropriation by the proletariat. I mostly agree with his political thinking, but I disagree that it’s the loss of some sort of aura that makes it possible.

Filtering Benjamin through Malcolm McLuhan, I’d say that what he calls “aura” – that immediate emotional response to a piece of art – is defined somewhat generationally. While Benjamin might feel alienated from film, anyone born into a world post-Hollywood would hardly find it foreign, as film has become a part of their communication literacy. (Until, perhaps, film is displaced altogether, but that’s another argument.) So while new forms of communication might allow some an increasing amount of objectivity toward art, there are just as many, if not more, for whom the new forms are inherent to their understanding of the world. I also question how long even the most extreme luddite could resist being socialized into acquiescing to a well-honed form.

On the other hand, I do think that electronic reproduction, with its limitless perfect copies, more than mechanical, has fulfilled Benjamin’s promise that “the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character… At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer.” Doesn’t that accurately describe the exact argument we’ve been having over blogging and journalism? And the same mounting tide which now threatens to overturn nearly every other content-producing industry? Despite the quick appropriation mechanical reproduction for commercial purposes (and, some might say, a cultural form of the very fascism Benjamin was hoping to elude), electronic reproduction seems to be fulfilling his predictions from nearly a century ago.