Thoughts on Readings 2/18/09

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

I had the opportunity to read this theoretical analysis as part of a class that I had last semester, entitled "Arts in Context". The course was designed to provide future Arts Administrators with some of the analytical tools to deconstruct art and apply some of the better known critical theories to our work.

I really enjoyed the class (it provided a much needed contrast to the other classes I was taking that semester) and particularly enjoyed reading the prophetic thoughts of Walter Benjamin. In re-reading the chapter and also referring to some of my class notes from our discussion, I wanted to highlight some interesting points:

1.) He seems centered on the idea that art is based upon the critical concept of "aura". That is to say that art carries with it a physical, visual presence which creates an emotional connection with the audience. This "aura" creates a sense of authenticity, tangibility, and uniqueness-it creates a feeling that is almost MAGNETIC. This "aura" is intrinsic to an original piece of art.

2.) However, once the work of art is reproduced (with one of the many technological advancements that make this possible), the "aura" dissipates. This "aura" is diluted with continuous reproduction.

3.) Freud talks about people possessing charisma-this is the same conceptually as Benjamin's "aura".

4.) Using performance art as an example, this idea becomes very clear. Stage performances are all about connecting the actor with the audience; the audience sees and feels the actor's "aura". Film acting takes away this sense of intimate communication-it creates a sense of alienation for the actor. Control is situated differently in a film performance vs. a live stage performance. In film, the director and editor have the most control-they can use the techniques of mechanical reproduction to influence the thoughts of the audience. In a stage performance-the control is in the hands of the actors and the actor manages his/her relationship with his/her audience.

5.) This reading reminds me of the 1936 Chaplin film "Modern Times". In the film, Chaplin is a worker who represents a simple cog in the machinery of the factory in which he works. Framing the film in the time in which it was produced has particular resonance (the Great Depression). The film was a critique of capitalism and mechanization.

6.) The end of the article is very interesting-it seems to hold a "cautionary message" regarding the rise of technology as it parallels the rise of Fascism. Benjamin seems to be saying that the two forces coming together will inexorably alter the state of the human race. I think that to some extent, Benjamin was correct. Certainly, the rise of technology (in particular the Internet) has completely altered the way that we communicate with our social contacts on a day to day basis. And our consumption of art is certainly altered by the Internet-many of us have never seen some of the great paintings of the last two centuries live-however, we usually have seen them wrapped up and tied with the neat bow of capitalism.

I decided to do a bit of research on the life of Benjamin to examine the cultural zeitgeist from which he emerged. Benjamin was living in France in 1940 when Hitler invaded. Being a Jew and knowing his potential fate, Benjamin tried to escape over the border into Spain. There was some resistance to his crossing at the border, so Benjamin committed suicide that evening. Ironically, the next day the border crossing rules changed and Benjamin would have crossed with no issues had he just waited a day. A tragic irony.


The Public and Its Problems by John Dewey-Chapter VI-"The Problem of Method"

I really enjoyed this final chapter of the Dewey book. It really pulled together all of his ideas and summarized what seemed to be his primary points.

He begins by discussing again the concept of individualism vs. collectivism. There is essentially no absolute version of each concept. And understanding this is essentially to creating a public and state that are mutually beneficial to one another. He encapsulates it well when he says:

"the human being whom we fasten upon as individual par excellence is moved and regulated by his associations with others; what he does and what the consequences of his behavior are, what his experience consists of, cannot even be described, much less accounted for, in isolation" (p. 188).

He seems to be breaking down the idea of the inter-connectedness of all individuals within society, and to stress the "ripple effect" of behaviors. Behaviors that seem to be isolated usually have unknown consequences for a much larger group of individuals. Being a film nerd, Dewey's statement made me think of the Frank Capra classic film "It's A Wonderful Life". George Bailey is on the verge of committing suicide, thinking that his life has not touched other lives in a significant way. An angel shows him the dark world that would exist had he not lived, and he finally sees his importance in the collective society in which he lives.

He also discusses the problem of reconciling the individual vs. the society when they are fundamentally in opposition when uniting in societies and groups. At what point are one's individual interests sublimated by the interests of the collective group? Does this necessarily have to occur? Who are the people who dictate the "collective goals" for a group?

He then outlines a new methodology for generating policies and proposals for social action. Dewey argues that they "should be treated as working hypotheses, not as programs to be rigidly adhered to and executed". He discusses the evolution of the democratic movement as one that "was coincident with the transfer of power from landed proprietors, allied to churchly authorities, to captains of industry, under conditions which involved an emancipation of the masses from legal limitations which had previously hemmed them in" (p. 204).

The next section I found to be completely relevant to the past 8 years of life in the United States under the Bush Administration. Dewey demonstrates the danger of a powerful state that does not consider the needs of the public which it serves. What happens when you have the needs of a powerful few dictating the economic and political landscape of the public? Dewey states:

"No government by experts in which the masses do not have the chance to inform the experts as to their needs can be anything but an oligarchy managed in the interests of a few" (p. 208).

I was struck by how easy it was to come up with examples of this during the dark years of the Bush Administration. Extreme tax cuts for the top 1% income bracket, a crippled health care system in which many Americans cannot afford even the most basic health care package and are left to fend for themselves and make decisions about whether they should go to the doctor or pay their mortgages, and the list goes on and on. I even thought of the widely reported story that Condoleeza Rice spend her time in NYC visiting the 9/11 site shoe shopping in the most exclusive Madison Avenue boutiques!! Are these the "experts" meant to represent the masses or the privileged elite who only seems concerned with the interests of a few?

Luckily, the public came together last November and made a decision that we were no longer going to have a government concerned with the interests of a few. Whether or not changes will be made to address this issue still remains to be seen, but I am one of the many who say "YES, WE CAN!".

There, off of my soapbox. Thanks Dewey!!!