Walter Benjamin's publications of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" brings us back to last year's Aesthetic's class. Oh boy. In relation to Horkheimer and Adorno's works that we have since gone over since the beginning of the semester, we are dealing with the notion of the aura, and the idea that "art will conform to Marxist theory but be immune from Fascist ideology". This notion directly relates to the Dialectic of Enlightenment by the connection of philosophically and ethically disproving the fascist ideology in 20th century Germany.
The idea that Benjamin is playing with here is that with the modern age of industry coming into its prime, the works of art, that have been hence forth a tool of pleasure used solely by the elite and intellectuals, is now being put out into the public on mass scales through reproduction. The essence that makes an unique work of art, its "aura" is being diminished through reproduction on a mass scale. The Mona Lisa for example, has been reproduced time and time again, make the uniqueness of the painting obsolete in its entirety. Classical art has an aura, since it dealt with a means of transcendentalism and mystique, but with modern art, it has has no aura and loses authenticity due to mass reproduction. What would Horkheimer and Adorno have to say about mr. Benjamin's views, and his connection of art conforming to Marxist theory?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that Benjamin was far too optimistic regarding the benefits of politicizing art. For example, Walt Disney, in the form of film, created Anti-Nazi cartoons to "educate" children. These films were funded by the government. Benjamin would most likely see this as a benefit. However, at the same time, Disney was also funding to make short films for children titled, "My Friend the Atom Bomb." I've never seen anything friendly about atomic bombs.
ReplyDelete