The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction.

Walter Benjamin. An ideas man. A thinker. A person way beyond his time. Well i think so anyway.. The piece he wrote in 1936 (title mentioned above), set about some serious thought processes in my mind over the last week. It has made me look at the world we live in, things surrounding us, day to day life, very differently, albeit in a different light. We don't realise how much we take for granted and how much passes us by without us taking a second look and appreciating it all. It has also opened my eyes to much of what is real and what is, for a better word, edited.

Some questions posed for us to think about and answer...

• How do the ideas from Walter Benjamin's "The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction" apply to contemporary digital media?
• There was a time when "Art" was made by artists who were skilled professionals. Now that anyone with a computer can create things digitally (music, images, videos, etc), what does it mean for art?
• Is a Photoshopped image authentic?
• Do digital things have an 'aura' (in Walter Benjamin's terms)?

First of all, it is important to establish that when Benjamin refers to 'art' he does not simply mean paintings or drawings. His reference is to everything artistic from painting to acting to singing. He encompasses all the different art forms. Benjamin states "when the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult, the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever", which basically sets the theme for the rest of his piece.
The ideas suggested by Benjamin are that of authenticity and originality disappearing because of the technology we have invented in the modern age and this digital era that allows anything to be edited, changed, reproduced etc. without a second thought. Through the lack of authenticity the "total function of art is reversed", that is the process changes, both mentally and physically. It is no longer "based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics". So for the first time in our history, art is no longer dependent on ritual, this due souly to mechanical reproduction. Therefore, art is now more widely available to the masses in exhibition form. In this instance Benjamin shows the ease of a portrait being exhibited, compared to "the statue of a divinity that has its fixed place in the interior of a temple". This now leads me to the idea of an 'aura' in works of art. So while we may not be able to see the 'original' statue of a divine god, modern technology allows these to be easily mass produced and sent anywhere in the world. I would have to say that literally being there, standing in front of a statue of a divinitythat is thousands and thousands of years old brought all the way from Greece, in the British Museum last year, is priceless compared to looking back on those memories in pictures. Same goes for beautiful sunrises i've witnessed on tropical islands in the pacific where the moon is still setting as the sun is rising, and viewing this all through scattered coconut palms over the ocean. Words could not explain how amazing it was, yet looking back at the picture just isn't the same. So when Benjamin talks about the 'aura', he is referring to the essence of the object that it accumulates over time from beginning to end in "testimony to the history it has experienced". The "authority of an object" is also jeopardised through mechanical reproduction which in turn eliminates the "aura of the work of art". In a sense, the reproduced object is removed from tradition through this technique and all essence or 'aura' is lost. The same can be said for live performances. Viewing live concerts or acting enables the audience to become deeply involved and to experience the performance and the ambience. Whereas watching a movie, someone acting on a screen "permits the audience to take the position of a critic, without experiencing any personal contact with the actor", says Benjamin.
As for photoshopped images being classed as authentic. I think it really depends on the object and the reason. Generally i'd say no in a sense, that photoshopped images wouldn't be authentic if you edit, crop and change an original image then they lose all value. But that then poses the question that if an image is changed enough, is that classed as authentic to the new artist? But also what is classed as enough? And if an artist creates an image from scratch on photoshop then who's to say it's not authentic? Photoshop can create some great altered images, like black and white etc. It definitely is up to the individual but it's also a bit of a grey area as far as rules and laws of authenticity go! Benjamin states "mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art". I guess this is due to all the technology we have at our fingertips we are now able to create or change any form of art so it no longer surprises people anymore. We are in a world moving forward and art will never be the same again!