Eddie, Benjamin

Walter Benjamin states that “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.” To better picture his concern, imagine if we bought a DVD print of Spiderman 3 from Walmart. That mass-produced incident of a film – an artwork – finds its way into our homes to meet our eyes without us ever seeing the film in its raw form during its conception into reality, as it does with live drama. Yet Benjamin makes the bold assumption that reproducible art is an extension of traditional art, where the two share a common set of values which define their artistic values. But is that the case?

Consider a painting at a museum. To see the painting face-to-face is to engage the artist and his work in its rawest form with the essence and mechanics intact. Seeing how the oil paint comes together and work with our minds is the “tradition” that Benjamin speaks of. If we like that painting and buy a printed poster of it in the souvenir shop, the true form – the essence – of the oil painting is naturally lost because it is no longer an oil painting but rather a layer of dye on a shiny piece of paper sans the contour, texture and smell of the original. Understandably, “tradition” has left this replication. But is the poster ever seen in the same regards as the original? Do we not understand the poster to be a replication, a simulation, and expect the poster to be no more than a decorative item? Any modern iteration of a classic art, whether it be translated into a digital form or photographic form, should be seen as a completely different entity with different purposes and functions as well as a different identity.

Also, let’s say Spiderman 3 becomes a legend among films. Where does the original art lie? If we have a DVD print at home, do we then regard the DVD to be the definitive copy? Not likely. In such a case, not even a “master copy” (if there is such a thing) of the film would be considered the piece of art itself. Instead, with art like film that was born from the techniques of mass-distribution, the artwork is super-physical. It exists as the film itself and not as any particular copy. It exists as the collective experience of all those who have engaged it and lives solely in the minds among the audience. It has no physical form as does an oil painting, and the film reels and discs are better described as the physical window that links them to the material world. Unlike the poster from the souvenir shop, we never regard the films we see to be an emulation or shadow of a single far-off, ominous piece of great art. The message and ideas are intact and so are the intended functions.

To phrase my point in one sentence, traditional art cannot be translated into reproducible art and reproducible art exists independently and has its own “traditions” that survive reproduction.