The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproducibility.

‘The reproduced work of art is to an ever increasing extent the reproduction of a work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic print, for instance, many prints can be made; the question of the genuine print has no meaning.’ (Benjamin, 1936).

Benjamin describes this element of art having an original form which could not be copied without sacrificing its ‘aura’, he asserts that one advantage this absence of aura lends itself, is that the increased reach of the medium (print etc.) allows art to become politicised:

‘…the instant the criterion of genuineness in art production failed, the entire social function of art underwent an upheaval. Rather than being underpinned ritual, it came to be underpinned by a different practice: politics.’ (Benjamin, 1936).

It is fair to say that the current methods of producing art (at least photographically) are far more removed from Benjamin’s notion of aura than perhaps he even could have thought imaginable. What would Benjamin have made of the current situation, where, due to developments in digital technology, there is no longer a ‘genuine print’, or even a physical negative, but a form of pure data made precisely for ease of reproducibility and dissemination? The question is how this degree of evolution has affected the political undertones of art being produced – as well as reproduced – digitally.

Firstly, given the technological advances since Benjamin wrote his essay in 1936, is there any significant difference in what he marked out as cornerstones in the changes brought about by mechanical reproduction? The lack of any original negative or print lends itself to his notion that ‘Quantity has now become quality’. Perhaps the only element which is missing compared with the current situation, is the degree of speed that art can be shared with a mass international audience; whereas the art of the mechanical age would need to be processed, proofed and then printed before reaching its audience, any image taken digitally can be disseminated globally in an instant. Therefore, if there is any change in the political subtext of art in the digital age, then this degree of speed in reaching an audience is likely to be significant.

However, art, as opposed to journalism, doesn’t tend to make use of this possibility. Journalism does make full use of digital technology to disseminate its imagery and text to a global audience largely using the internet, such as websites and social media, and to a lesser extent digital radio and TV. To revisit the notion of ‘aura’ it is fair to say it’s absence does indeed allow for the broadcasting of a political message, as witnessed in the recent revolutions in Arabic countries ascribed (albeit by the media itself) to the influence of digital media. So wherein lies the political in art which has been further removed from the notion of aura by Digital Reproducibility?

As this essay is concerning itself with the shift in any political message art may have had since these changes took place, it is important to get an understanding of where Benjamin is placed politically. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction was written in 1936, in the midst of the political changes brought about by the Great War, when Communism was trying to establish itself and Benjamin was himself a Marxist, it’s also notable that Benjamin, himself Jewish, wrote the essay in Germany during the rise of Nazism. One significant movement Benjamin discusses is Dada, citing it as THE example of an art movement which has totally rejected an aura: ‘What they achieve … is the ruthless destruction of the aura of their output’ (Benjamin, 1936); and indeed, Dadaism had a strong political message; that of communism.

As Ben Lewis recently argued in his film The Great Contemporary Art Bubble, contemporary art is now more closely related to business than political movements such as Benjamin’s beloved Marxism, if at all political it could arguably be capitalist. Much as with any businesses, without generating growth in their market, without selling books, or exhibition tickets, artists could not support themselves and continue to make artworks, and to make full use of digital technology in the way journalism does, would likely mean making their work freely available in order to reach the same scale of audience. In order for art to be politicised to the same degree Benjamin imagined, much as with Dada, it would need to produce ‘art for arts sake’ and move away from traditional means of supporting itself financially. How this could be done remains to be seen, and as such, have we perhaps reached a point at which fine art is looking to maintain some of its old aura in order as a means to maintain itself?