Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
1. Introduction
In the early twenty-first century, cinema has become so ingrained in daily life that it is often taken for granted. Movies are omnipresent and hold immense significance in global culture, far surpassing the influence of other forms of mass media like books or art. Despite its widespread presence today, the rise of cinema as the dominant and technologically advanced art form is relatively recent. The history of cinema dates back only to the end of the nineteenth century, and its transformation into the influential force we recognize today is still ongoing.
Cinema is not just a collection of films; it is also a technology, an industry, and an art form. The word “cinema” refers not only to the films themselves but also to the machinery that produces them and the places where people go to watch them. Cinema represents more than just a form of entertainment; it’s a way of creating and viewing the world, allowing filmmakers to craft entire worlds for audiences to engage with.
1.1 Origin of Cinema as a New Art Form
The origins of cinema are deeply connected to technological advancements that made the medium possible. The primary precursor to cinema was photography, which emerged in the nineteenth century as a groundbreaking technique for capturing images. The development of photography laid the groundwork for what would later evolve into cinema. Early filmmakers and inventors sought ways to combine photographic techniques with devices that could capture images in quick succession and play them back in such a way that created the illusion of movement.
Virginia Wright Wexman explains that cinema’s origins were driven by a desire to visualize records of life, including the movements of both humans and animals. This quest to make movement visible is central to cinema’s distinctiveness as an art form. Early cinema was often referred to as “moving pictures” or “movies”, terms that emphasized the dynamic nature of the medium compared to static forms of visual art, like photography.
Several pre-cinematic technologies contributed to the development of cinema, including the Magic Lantern (which projected images onto a screen), the Phenakistoscope (a device with a rotating disc that created the illusion of motion), and the Zoetrope (a drum-like object that produced a moving sequence when spun). These devices helped pave the way for the creation of moving images and the eventual rise of cinema.
A pivotal moment in the history of cinema occurred in 1895, when the Lumière Brothers, Auguste and Louis Lumière, introduced their cinématographe in Paris. This device was a combination of a camera and a projector, and its public demonstration is often regarded as the birth of cinema as we know it. The Lumière Brothers’ film “La Sortie de l’Usine Lumière à Lyon” (Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory) is considered one of the earliest examples of projected film. These first films were black-and-white, silent, and only about 50 to 55 seconds long.
Although these early films were rudimentary compared to today’s full-length features, the Lumière Brothers and other innovators were aware of the limitations of the technology and were constantly striving to improve it. The history of cinema is thus intertwined with rapid technological advancements, including the shift from silent films to the “talkies” (films with synchronized sound) and from black-and-white films to color films. Other milestones in this journey include the emergence of video tape in the 1970s and the rise of digital technologies in the 1990s.
1.2 Cinema as Questioning Traditional Functions of Art
Initially, due to its heavy reliance on technology, cinema was not considered an art form in the traditional sense. This view was rooted in the Romantic notion of art, which saw art as a product of the artist's spontaneous creativity. Romantic artists, like the poet William Wordsworth, believed that true art should come from the artist’s inner emotions and imagination, without the interference of mechanical processes. This suspicion toward technology made emerging art forms like photography and cinema, which relied on mechanization, seem inadequate compared to more traditional art forms.
As cinema developed, however, it began to gain recognition as an art form in its own right. The growing sophistication of cinema's technology and the creativity involved in filmmaking led to a shift in perception. Cinema combined artistic expression with technical innovation, ultimately blurring the boundaries between the “natural” and the “artificial”. Filmmakers drew on both their own creative potential and the available technological resources to create compelling narratives and images.
Monaco explains that early cinema, still seeking legitimacy, often aligned itself with established art forms like theatre and literature to gain acceptance. For example, many early films were adaptations of Shakespearean plays. This strategy continues today with the frequent adaptation of classic works into films to demonstrate that cinema can be “artistic” in the same way as literature.
However, Ricciotto Canudo, an Italian film theorist, made a compelling argument in 1911 that cinema is a unique art form. He posited that cinema represents the fusion of the “art of space” (visual art like painting and sculpture) and the “art of time” (music and poetry). According to Canudo, cinema is the “reconciliation” of these two art forms, offering a way to experience both narrative and visual expression simultaneously. Canudo’s idea emphasized that cinema was not just a mere imitation of other art forms, but a new mode of artistic expression that merged visuality and narrative in a way that was unprecedented.
1.3 Silent Cinema
The final topic discussed in the introduction is the era of Silent Cinema, which was prominent between the 1890s and the late 1920s. During this time, films were characterized by the absence of synchronized sound and dialogue. While the films were silent in terms of dialogue, they were not completely mute. Live music often accompanied the screenings, typically provided by a pianist or orchestra. In some cases, a narrator or lecturer would be present to explain the plot to the audience.
One defining feature of silent films was the use of intertitles, which were cards displayed on the screen with narrative text or dialogue. These intertitles helped convey the story, compensating for the lack of spoken words.
The acting style in silent films was highly exaggerated, often relying on facial expressions and body movements to convey emotion, as there was no spoken dialogue. This exaggerated style was influenced by theatre and vaudeville, and was a hallmark of the early silent film period. Over time, however, the acting style became more naturalistic, moving away from the over-the-top gestures and expressions typical of earlier films. Nevertheless, the influence of theatre persisted in some silent films, such as the comedic performances of Charlie Chaplin, whose Tramp character continued to use physical comedy for comedic effect well into the 1930s.
The transition from silent films to talkies (films with synchronized sound) occurred with the release of The Jazz Singer in 1927, which featured synchronized dialogue for the first time in film history. This marked the end of an era, and by the 1930s, most films featured spoken dialogue. Sound also allowed for music to become an integral part of the narrative, especially in genres like the musical.
Interestingly, Charlie Chaplin was one of the last filmmakers to resist the rise of sound films. He believed that dialogue would detract from the universality of his character, The Tramp, whose appeal, he thought, was partly due to his lack of spoken words. Nonetheless, Chaplin eventually had to incorporate sound into his films, and works like Modern Times represent a transitional phase between silent and sound cinema.
2. WALTER BENJAMIN’S “THE WORK OF ART IN THE AGE OF MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION” (1936): AN ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
2.1 Mechanical Reproduction: From the “Original” to the “Copy” and the Withering of the Artwork’s “Aura”
Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1936) argues that technological advancements, particularly in mechanical reproduction, have radically altered our relationship with art. In the past, art was often revered as a unique, authentic object, created by a genius artist and imbued with an aura—a kind of mystique or sacredness. Art was exclusive, its value tied to its originality and its inaccessibility to the masses. Benjamin suggests that with mechanical reproduction, technology allows for mass circulation of art, making it easily reproducible, transportable, and accessible to the public. This shift undermines the old idea of art as elite and exclusive, providing instead a democratized view of art.
Benjamin emphasizes that the original artwork—such as a Mona Lisa painting in the Louvre Museum—held cultural significance largely due to its uniqueness and historical context. However, with the advent of mechanical reproduction, the “original” becomes less important. Copies of artworks, such as photographs or prints, lose the need for the aura that once surrounded the “original”. In this sense, mechanical reproduction distributes art more widely, creating a dynamic interaction between art and its viewers. Copies allow for appropriation and personalization in the viewer's cultural and social context.
Benjamin introduces the concept of “aura”, describing it as a unique phenomenon tied to the historical context and distance between the artwork and the viewer. The aura creates an elitist relationship with the artwork, where its value is linked to its rarity and cultural prestige. With mechanical reproduction, however, art becomes more accessible, stripping it of its mystique and cultural reverence. As the aura fades, art becomes exhibited rather than worshipped, shifting from an object of cult value to one of exhibition value.
Through mechanical reproduction, the original artwork’s importance diminishes, and its democratization begins. This change in the value of art enables it to be part of social and political movements, helping to engage the masses with the artwork, thereby using art as a tool for political transformation. Benjamin argues that this shift undermines the old idea of art as something separate from social reality, suggesting instead that art should reflect the socio-political context and be used for revolutionary purposes.
2.2 The Film’s Distinctiveness as an Art Form: The Stage Actor and the Screen Actor
Benjamin continues his exploration by focusing on film as the most important mechanically reproduced art form in the modern age. He points out that mechanical reproduction in cinema is inherent to the medium. Unlike other art forms, where reproduction is an external condition, film production itself is built on the process of mechanical reproduction, using technology for both creation and distribution.
One of the major distinctions Benjamin makes in this section is between the stage actor and the screen actor. In traditional theatre, the actor performs live, in front of an audience, and the organic presence of the actor is central to the performance. In contrast, the screen actor's performance is mediated by technology. The actor's body is no longer directly encountered by the audience; instead, the performance is recorded and presented through a camera.
This technological mediation removes the “aura” of the actor's physical presence. For instance, a stage actor interacts with the audience in real time, with a continuous and unified performance. In contrast, a screen actor's performance is fragmented into separate shots and assembled through editing. A single scene, such as a character jumping from a window, may be shot in different places and times, and then stitched together in post-production. This fragmented process challenges the “lifelike” nature of acting and reality in cinema, highlighting the artificial aspects of the medium. Cinema presents reality not as a direct representation, but as a technologically-produced effect.
Through this lens, cinema challenges the verisimilitude (lifelikeness) associated with traditional art forms like theatre. While theatre relies on the organic, live performance, cinema relies on mechanical reproduction to create a technologically-mediated reality, shifting the very nature of the performance and the viewer's experience.
2.3 The Film and Psychoanalysis
In this section, Benjamin connects cinema to psychoanalysis, particularly the insights of Sigmund Freud. He argues that just as psychoanalysis has enhanced our understanding of the mind by revealing the unconscious and repressed desires, cinema similarly deepens our perception of reality by showing us the hidden, often unconscious layers of our world. Through the use of close-ups and slow-motion, cinema expands our perception of space and time, presenting objects and scenes in ways the naked eye cannot normally perceive.
For example, close-up shots reveal intricate details of everyday objects, making the ordinary seem extraordinary. Similarly, slow-motion sequences stretch time, allowing us to see things that happen too quickly in real life, thus providing a deeper insight into the world around us. In this way, cinema allows us to experience reality from new perspectives, much as psychoanalysis does by revealing the hidden unconscious impulses.
Benjamin suggests that cinema opens up a whole new realm of perception, where the camera acts as a tool to see the world differently, much like psychoanalysis opens up hidden layers of the psyche. Through the use of technology, cinema gives us an expanded field of vision, enabling us to discover aspects of reality that were previously overlooked.
2.4 The Film and the Painting: The Subversive Power of Distractedness as a Mode of Perception
Benjamin also compares film to painting, highlighting the different ways these two art forms engage the viewer. Paintings, with their static nature, encourage contemplative immersion, requiring the viewer to focus deeply on a single image. Cinema, on the other hand, is dynamic, with rapid changes in shots and scenes. This constant change creates a distracted mode of reception, where the viewer’s attention is divided across the flow of moving images.
Benjamin challenges the traditional critique that this distraction is a negative aspect of cinema. While some critics, like Georges Duhamel, viewed cinema as a passive entertainment for the masses, Benjamin argues that the distractedness engaged by cinema is a form of active perception. Cinema prevents viewers from forming a stable emotional connection with the narrative, making them more likely to think critically about what they are watching. This state of distraction allows viewers to become active judges of the film, instead of passive consumers of artistic illusion.
Additionally, Benjamin notes that cinema’s ability to engage the masses collectively is a powerful tool for social change. Unlike paintings, which are typically appreciated by individuals in a gallery setting, cinema can reach a wide audience at once, offering a shared experience that is politically significant. Benjamin draws a stark contrast between the potential of cinema to foster a progressive collective experience and the continued elitism surrounding traditional art forms like painting.
3. Conclusion:
Cinema as a Counter to the Fascistic Aestheticization of Politics
Benjamin concludes his essay by addressing the broader socio-political implications of his analysis, particularly in the context of the rise of fascism in the 1930s. He critiques the fascistic aestheticization of politics, where political power is glorified and mystified through art and culture. Fascism, Benjamin argues, seeks to make politics appear beautiful and inevitable through aesthetic means, such as propaganda and nationalistic symbols.
In contrast, Benjamin sees cinema—as an art form based on mechanical reproduction—as a means of politicizing art. The rise of mass-reproduced art, particularly cinema, has the potential to serve as a tool for political resistance, subverting fascist efforts to use art for reactionary purposes. Cinema, by democratizing access to art and reshaping how we perceive reality, offers a counterpoint to fascist ideologies that seek to suppress the masses and uphold the status quo.
For Benjamin, cinema holds the promise of a more egalitarian future, where art is not just an object of aesthetic admiration but a weapon for social change. By providing a platform for collective viewing and critical reflection, cinema offers the potential for a new, politically-conscious mode of perception that can challenge oppressive power structures and contribute to the creation of a more just society.