In this book, Walter Benjamin shows his concern about art in the period of technological revolution. The essence of artwork is a concept called aura, which Benjamin thinks suffers a loss during technological reproduction. On the one hand, authenticity is part of the aura, which is created by the specific historical background of a work of art. However, reproduction makes the product independent from historical content and destroys its uniqueness. On the other hand, Artwork loses its cult value when the reproduction happens. Cult value is created by distance, including both physical and aesthetic distance. Physical distance (time, space …) generates from the previous talked authenticity. The aesthetic gap keeps the masses away so that people have great respect for art.
Film, as a technology production, is a typical example of aura loss in Benjamin’s context. It is born for the masses, shot in pieces and is randomly edited by technology. Based on that, should we consider film as “fake art”? Actually, though it is against Benjamin’s concept, I think he appreciates films’ value of leading the masses to think deeper. Film provides an easy access requiring no concentration. However, that can lead people to deeper thinking, understanding a particular historical background and reflection on the current situation. The reception in distraction is a way for people to understand architecture as well as film, so film can also be a trainer for architectural understanding.
We can find several contradictions in Benjamin’s philosophy like the above one, from which we can get a glimpse of Benjamin’s thinking process. Robertson he is also an explorer but not a theory holder. It can also be found that Communism does have an impact on Benjamin. When the issues are about the masses, he makes a concession. He doesn’t consider art as something only for artists, he really thinks about common people. This leads to another contradiction in his theory.
Benjamin’s opinion needs selectively adoption for guiding current art development. We are unable to totally reject technology reproduction. However, if a film has nothing left without technology, we can not consider it as art. Nowadays we can clearly see the tendency of pursuing high-tech with ignorance of what is behind. Both practitioners and common people like us should always ask ourselves whether we are on a wrong path.
— Liu Yichu Chelsea, 3035773072
Your reflection shows a good understanding of Benjamin’s piece, especially on the dialectic process by him to discuss art reproduction and film. I would encourage you to analyse deeper the contradictions you observe: how is considering art for commoners a contradiction to his theory? Regarding your point on ‘selective adoption’ of Benjamin’s opinion, it is not that Benjamin totally rejects technology, as you write in paragraph 2, but under what circumstance the technological use in art endangers the masses.