W1 DISCUSSION: The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction

 

“The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction?” I haven’t heard that name in years…

I read Walter Benjamins essay quite a while ago—I think around grade 9ish when I was researching into a fun topic question for a project. It was for ‘creative design’ which was a “choose whatever question you want to research and then present on it” to teach us to manage our time. This was a bit wasted on 9th graders in my opinion, we were hardly thinking about time management fresh out of COVID and trying to learn how to speak to people again. My topic was along the lines of “How/Why do we value art the way we do?” which lead me down a mostly productive rabbit hole. I found the essay through an essay that was written in response—“The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction” by Douglas Davis.

Here’s a slightly illegal link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1576221 

And here’s a reading of the work on Youtube if you want to listen instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_U9-Da9NFQ 

In the essay, Davis takes quite an optimistic take on digital reproduction. It discusses how there’s no clear distance between the reproduction of the work and the original—and the “aura” that used to be so prized, is now shared in a unique way. The artist and viewer are inherently viewing it through the same lenses. It adds onto the idea of making art more accessible, and therefore less of a privilege.

Something that’s often brought to the table in a historical view of art is that art is a sign of excess. It means that individuals who have all their needs met—food, water, shelter, etc, have spare time to make art, since it’s non-essential to survival (despite what the poets may say). So, when we see art in the past, that means that there was a stable enough society to have this spare time and resources to make art. And a lack of art can indicate the opposite, but that take away is a bit more complicated.

I agree with the author on the shrinking distance between the original and the reproduction, however I don’t believe that the “aura” is reproduced in full the same way. The thesis was written in 1995, so his perception might have changed based off our technology today. A common pushback against AI is that we don’t see the “struggle” for the technique because making the work is as easy as putting in a word prompt. We see a lot of this anti-intellectualism in literature circles as well, people who simplify the text they are reading into ‘easier’ words removes the style and impact of the book itself. Therefore, it’s less rewarding when you read and understand a challenging book. In this scenario, the “struggle” is what makes the art valuable. (Just as an aside--I don't fully agree with 'harder the art was to make the more it is worth' but if I get into it now we will be here for ages) If people without arms learn to paint with their feet, why can’t AI and NFT bros learn to pick up a pen? And, is this reduction in “struggle” a sign that our society is no longer stable enough to make art?

I won’t open the can of worms that is my interest in social media algorithm sociology or whatever that non-existent field of study is, but I’ll touch on what I spoke about in my 9th grade PowerPoint. Essentially, if we collectively the value of art being the path of most resistance, we make it a behaviour only afforded to the privileged, since they’re the only ones with the free time and resources to participate in it. But making it accessible or easier removes the supposed value and “aura”. As an opposition to the literature argument, we have the theatre recording argument. Theatre, especially Broadway, is expensive to go see. Because of this, recordings are the best to reach larger audiences. When we are losing that aura, because lets admit it—there’s nothing more powerful than sitting in the seats of a live theatre production—but we are gaining accessibility. 

    So art exists in this weird middle space between accessibility and challenge. If it isn’t accessible, there’s no art (or its limited to the extremely privileged). If it’s too ‘easy’ to create, there’s no value.

    I’m about to miss my bus to printmaking. I hope you don’t mind me rambling without proofreading, if you’ve made it this far. The essay is good! I highly recommend it!