As a person who has been to see several impressive exhibits, I can somewhat testify to the presence of Benjamin's 'auras'. In some cases, though, these auras do more to dispel an air of superiority than present the viewer with a unique and worthwhile perspective on an original work.
For the sake of argument, let's say that the authentic original possessing the 'aura' was the first existence of the completed artwork on the computer of the artist that created it. The original existed in a set space, but barring a computer that never shuts off and always has the art displayed, at some point the authentic was removed from the screen. Is that art considered moved or destroyed? Technically, the art holds a digital space as a file in the hard drive, but what if you move the file to another computer? The image may not look the same, but essentially in order to transfer the file that contained that art the data was copied from one location to another then erased in the original location; so is the authentic original destroyed? Does digital art possess an aura?
If the object is viewed from a browser-based perspective, one could say a copy is produced and destroyed whenever the browser is opened or closed. While there is no real destruction taking place, the copy of the image ceases to exist in the space that was originally provided for it on a monitor. In some ways, this makes me question the value of the copied object since the rarity of the art doesn't seem to directly influence how valuable it is. This raises little flags on how to determine the worth of a digital print or of art as a whole, but that is something I can mull over at another time.
Reading that photography was the first 'truly' revolutionary means of reproduction (p224) didn't sit well with me. As we read last week, the printing press dramatically altered the economics behind reproduction, making it less of a time-consuming art and more of a practical trade. It seems that photography allows for images that more accurately represent images we see with our own eyes, but this development did not call for a dramatic overhaul of the entire system of reproduction. Printing remained very much the same, and the science of reproducing through print remained largely the same. Reproducing artwork that wasn't photography also remained the same. Of course, perhaps my interpretation is off due to my particular connotation of 'revolution'.
I agree that photography was not the first truly revolutionary means of reproduction. Both Benjamin and Nichols seem to have a "visual prejudice". What about radio and recordings? Do they fall under the same rules of a reproduction losing its aura?
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you for bringing that up - I agree about the printing press as an earlier form of reproduction than photography.
ReplyDeleteIts a good question about what is the original of digital art. And say a digital photo that hasn't been digitally manipulated, circulates on the internet, also without being manipulated, then all the 'copies' should be basically the same, right? So which is more original then? Or which digital copy owns the 'aura' of the photo. I guess for Benjamin the aura would only lie in the acutal thing that was photographed.
Aura and music raises a lot of questions. For some people, they would find the concert the best musical experience, others not so much. But then what about musical covers - they're reproductions, but sometimes they can be better than the original, so which has more aura?
ReplyDeleteIt is a luxury to ask twenty-first century questions of a 1936 essay, such as, “Does digital art possess an aura?” Walter Benjamin defines “aura” as “a unique phenomenon of distance however close it may be.” It does not seem that the digital art-piece has an aura if we consider only the art. Something “unique” is supposed to happen, but does it happen in the artwork itself, the viewer of the art, or the interaction of the two? If it happens in the viewer and/or the interaction, then there is an aura because we humans can sense distance.
ReplyDeleteIt is surprising that Benjamin refers to the Dadaists and doesn't say more about sound recordings.
ReplyDeleteWhat didn't sit well with me was the idea that until film or photography came along we couldn't be fully immersed in anything non-mechanically reproduced. The way Benjamin describes it, all of a sudden we could "calmly and adventurously go traveling." I think he neglects the immersive power of music, theatre and literature which has always been able to transport one to 'another place.' Not only is there a visual prejudice, but a hyperrealistic one as well.