Activity 7.1- The Aura
In The Work
of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility, Walter Benjamin
examines how technological developments reshape what art is and how people
experience it. For Benjamin, one of the defining characteristics of an artwork
is its “aura,” a quality rooted in the piece’s uniqueness and authenticity. An original
work carries a singular history, its physical presence, its age, and the
context in which it was created all contribute to its authority. When an artwork
is reproduced, however, it inevitably loses part of this aura, as the copy
cannot replicate the original’s distinctive existence in time and space.
There are
many advantages and disadvantages to reproducing a work of art, but it is
helpful to begin with the benefits. When an artwork is reproduced, photographed,
and widely shared, it becomes accessible to those who might not ever have the
opportunity to see the original. Only a small number of people are able to
travel to major museums or cultural centers to see the world’s most famous
pieces in person. Even for those who can, the sheer volume of art makes it impossible
to experience everything firsthand. Reproductions therefore play a critical
role in expanding access to art.
Beyond accessibility,
reproductions serve important educational purposes, allowing students, scholars
and the general public to study works that would otherwise remain unknown. Moreover,
photography and other technological innovations have contributed significantly
to the preservation and documentation of some of the world’s oldest artworks,
ensuring that they continue to have a presence in history, even as their physical
forms age and deteriorate.
Reproductions
also expand the marketability of an artist’s work. Traditionally, an artwork generated
income for the artist only at the moment of its initial sale, once the original
piece left the artist’s hands, it no longer provided any financial return. With
the rise of reproductions, trademarks, and mass production, artists can now
continue to profit from their creations long after the original has been sold.
Prints, licensed images, merchandise, and other commercial forms allow artists
to maintain an ongoing economic relationship with their work, transforming a
single artwork into a sustained source of revenue.
That being
said, there are notable drawbacks to reproductions of artwork as well.
Photographs rarely capture the true essence of an original piece. Colors can
shift, scale is often misrepresented, and the tactile qualities, texture,
depth, and material presence, are inevitably lost. I remember seeing Georges Seurat’s
Sunday on La Grande Jatte in person for the first time. Although I had
studied the painting for years, nothing prepared me for the sheer scale of the
work when standing before it. No photograph in a book or online can replicate
the experience of encountering the actual canvas, nor can it convey the aura
Benjamin describes.
As Emily
Carter (2005) writes in her article, she describes aura as, “the feeling one
gets when standing before an original painting […], knowing that the artist’s
hand touched the canvas, that the painting has witnessed centuries of history,
and that it is, in a sense, irreplaceable.” This sense of presence, of being in
the same space as the artwork’s physical history, is something reproduction
simply cannot convey.
With the
mass production and over‑commodification of artworks, there is a real
possibility that the “aura” Benjamin describes may be diminished. The more
frequently we encounter an image on posters, mugs, screens, and advertisements,
the less likely we are to feel a profound impact when standing before the
original. Yet history suggests that the aura of great artworks remains
resilient. Millions of visitors still travel to the Louvre each year to see the
Mona Lisa
in person, despite its image being reproduced endlessly. Likewise, original
works by artists such as Picasso or Basquiat continue to command tens of
millions of dollars at auction.
In the end,
the technological reproduction of art has undeniably transformed how we experience
and understand artworks, expanding access all while raising questions about
authenticity and aura. Benjamin’s concerns about the diminishing power of the
original are not unfounded, yet when we see the continued reverence for masterpieces
around the world, one might suggest that the aura of art is more resilient than
it seems. The modern world may multiply images endlessly, but the magic of the
original endures.
Sources
Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of
its technological reproducibility (Second Version). In M. W.
Jennings, B. Doherty, & T. Y. Levin (Eds.), The work of art in the age
of its technological reproducibility, and other writings on media
(pp. 19–55). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1936)
Carter, E. (2025, January 29). The aura
of the artwork (Benjamin). Art‑Guides. https://art-guides.com/the-aura-of-the-artwork-benjamin/
Romm, J. (2017, January 10). Mass‑reproduction
is changing the experience of art. Mark Rothko is here to help. The
Forward. https://forward.com/culture/359586/mass-reproduction-is-changing-the-experience-of-art-mark-rothko-is-here-to/
Comments
Post a Comment