Walter Benjamin (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

          Arts in general whether it portrays Cubism, Expressionism or Abstract all had its value and appreciation of its quality and uniqueness of the work depreciated with the modern introduction of mechanical reproduction, not to mention the impact of innovative photography as well as sound film.  While Jünger who described photography and film as evil incarnate raising his opinions of photography and film as supernatural, Benjamin on the other hand argued for mechanical reproduction and modernization of photography and film as cultural change towards Capitalism which has vast benefits yet denigrates individual value and quality of the original work.

Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the original.

          I chose this passage in Benjamin’s essay in reflecting what I absolutely agree with.  Space and time I believe, although some philosophers and great thinkers of our history may argue for its insignificance, signifies the uniqueness of its work produced at that time and place which enhances the value and quality of the subjective artwork.  

          This related to my personal experience of investigating and researching an early Christian art, a triptych painting called “Merode Altarpiece”.

Merode Altarpiece, Cloisters Museum.

As Benjamin contended, with modernization of reproduction and now the Internet, I was easily able to obtain copies of the painting in digital photo format, including relative information and history regarding the painter, the painting as well as the time and setting with which this triptych painting was produced.  However, this method of viewing the painting through enhanced digital photo online depreciated the meaning, the value and quality of workmanship of the painting as Benjamin stated.  It is understandable that the experience isn’t the same as if you’d visit and firsthand witness the original artwork with your naked eyes.  This point is what attracted me to agree with Benjamin.  Time and space to me relates the interpretation of the artwork or the meaning to the artwork portrayed by the artist.

Upon realizing the “Merode Altarpiece” was actually in the Cloisters Museum, offsite of Metropolitan Museum of Art, I visited the museum, saw the painting and experienced firsthand what Benjamin stated.  It was a vastly different experience seeing the painting in its place, or time and setting perhaps, since the exhibition of the painting was also surrounded by what appeared to be something out of the Middle Ages.  The fine details of the painting was viewed which was invisible through reproduction – mind you, Triptych paintings, the typical and yet popular standard format for paintings during the middle ages and onwards especially for altar paintings used wood as its canvas which were hinged together so that it can be folded shut or displayed open which also allowed for ease of transporting the artwork.  I was able to view the fine gradations of different colored paints, the cracks on the wooden canvas as well as traces of the condition of the painting over time.  I was able to gather and witness all the details of the artwork which I would not have fathomed just by looking at a reproduced photograph.

 Although Benjamin articulated much more negative value towards modern reproduction of works of art, in situations when the original work cannot be looked at or impossible to travel to view, the modernization of photography engenders the ability to travel to the sources of locales where the artwork resides via Internet.  Benjamin weighs heavily the value and quality as well as the uniqueness of “things” whether they are artwork or architecture, but the advantages of the modernizations of reproduction in my opinion plays just as heavy role in balancing what Benjamin conveyed.

Ernst Jünger (1895-1998), On Pain (1934)

          A bit about the author; Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) was a fascinating German writer of the Twentieth century.  He served in the trenches in France during World War I and during the Weimar period in Germany, he devoted himself as one of the foremost thinkers of what was later referred to as Conservative Revolution which attempted to add another position beyond the Left and the Right wings.  He was never a member of the National Socialist movement; however, he was hailed by them as a forerunner.  He refused invitation to the Nazi Party and to head the German Academy of Literature.  He was then later ostracized by them when he wrote about his negative perceptions and against situations of Hitler’s regime.  He served in the Wehrmacht during World War II in occupied France assigned in an administrative position.  He continued to write after the war, and as an enthusiast, he experimented with cocaine, hashish as well as LSD along with its inventor friend Dr. Albert Hofmann.  It can be said that he is one of the most astonishing German writers to have lived through the historical periods in German history including Wilhelmine or pre-Weimar Republic, Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, the divided Germany and then the reunification of Germany.

          I chose the following passage in which Jünger explains pain playing significant role in discipline.

“Here, too, pain plays a significant, but no doubt opposite, role.  This is because life strives incessantly to stay in contact with pain.  Indeed, discipline means nothing other than this, whether it is of the priestly-ascetic kind directed toward abnegation or of the warlike-heroic kind directed towards hardening oneself like steel.  In both cases, it is a matter of maintaining complete control over life, so that at any hour of the day it can serve a higher calling.  The central question concerning the rank of present values can be answered by determining to what extent the body can be treated as an object.”  (On Pain, p.16)

          It reminded me of the story of Spartacus the gladiator slave who opposed the Roman Empire and attempted to liberate the slaves.  Then Roman Empire wherein some people had no choice but to have gladiator slave-like mentality, with decrepit caste system without hope other than daily struggle with pain, treating one’s body, disciplining one’s body to pain, and to measure or negate pain in a “priestly-ascetic kind” or directing it towards anger and therefore the behavior of the “warlike-heroic kind hardening oneself like steel.”  (On Pain, p.16)  It also briefly reminded me of Descartes dualism wherein he argues the mind and body function separately.  “. . .determining to what extent the body can be treated as an object”, again in my opinion reproaches disciplining oneself; mind over matter, as in this case, mind over body.

          However, that was just but one type of pain explained among many that Jünger references and relates.  Which in my opinion overall led to an interesting reference and perspective on pain on a spiritual adaptation as one’s interpretation and acceptance of pain as well as one’s tolerance of pain, wherein he describes even “Boredom is nothing other than the dissolution of pain in time.” (On Pain. p.13).  I say subjective paradox with nihilistic approach on life and peace especially with the inevitable industrial supremacy.

Triumph of the Will (1935)

I began watching the movie “Triumph of the Will” and contemplated how propaganda reaches people and turn people into giving up their freedom – at this point, Germans didn’t have a choice; they sought Hitler to power who suspended all liberties.  I understand there were other factors attributed to what occurred in Germany but it brings me to think about our freedom and the importance of the US First Amendment.

There have been times, especially during times of war or turmoil, nations and countries like the US which preach and practice freedom and the First Amendment, have taken away individual rights even press rights, opinions, expressions, and freedom proclaiming Acts as laws to abide by – umm this sounds familiar; sounds a lot like Article 48 of Weimar constitution, isn’t this the way Hitler turned Germany into dictatorship?  The US Sedition Acts as well as Amendments to the Espionage Acts gave permission to the government to suspend the First Amendment – it prohibited negative language against the US government, disloyalty to the US government, its flag, its armed forces or that causes others to see the US government in any negative light.  However, it was written that this only applies in times when the US is in war.  Don’t get me wrong, however other people have interpreted this, it was written in order to suppress mob mentality and vigilantism within the public so that they don’t take matters into their own hands.  But this first Sedition Act of 1798 pertained originally to US in war in US soil.  How about US involved in war outside of US?  How come US press is denied information about war that is happening elsewhere in the world by US troops?  Different circumstances, different country, different topic – just gone off tangent trying to point out governments do at times conduct actions negatively of course in the name of “national security”, or hide and omit things from the public which breaches our freedom.

During and after watching the movie, Triumph of the Will (1935), I’ve found myself saying “WOW!” a dozen times both in complete shock and at more times in complete positive awe.  Of course that’s what they propagandized and consciously showed the rest of the world the good image and the notion of “will to power” as Nietzschians proclaim – it worked!  At least on me it did – it’s not just the way Hitler was portrayed in the movie/documentary alone; I felt as though he really had a grand agenda for Germany in a progressive direction.  Perhaps he had, at least in the beginning of his rise to leadership and power, or perhaps the targeting and annihilation of Jews among others was his prime agenda from the get-go, and his show of leadership, charisma along with all the “romantic” things Weber mentions (traditional, bureaucratic and charismatic) in identifying the forms of authority was simply an act by Hitler.  Because Hitler portrayed all that and more in my opinion in this no limit budget propaganda film – of course that’s what he was supposed to portray?

Again I have a dilemma of picking and choosing just a scene or series of scenes to portray – the movie, though-out, is such propaganda that it pulls you to listen, to see further what he has to say.  Look at the scenes in the beginning of the movie – with pomp and circumstance, all those vast number of people, chanting, raising their arms in salute and respect – people loved him!  He was wooed, he was loved and Hitler knew it!  You can see it in his face – he loved it.  And to my surprise, he seemed to appear sincere which showed as he was in power – look at how the economy improved.  It was nationalism – will to power, make Germany great, strengthen, build and become a nation of power!  But then what happened?  The army of young men he amasses soon looked to me as though Hitler was grooming them to be his elite SS and more.  All the while, every speech he makes, the force of his emotions in his speech, like a mock-trial contender doubling his charisma with passionate conviction, he praises with optimism and persuades, you see the captivating faces of the masses in agreement and admiration, although I have to admit, at some points, the younger kids look brain-washed.  And I suppose it was brain-washing; day in and day out you hear the propaganda, you see posters and signs written stating the same and you’re with bunch of others conforming – and I bet, you had better conformed.

He wanted to lead Germany his way, but in the beginning, with the mix of the Communists and the Socialists I assume, he had to correct situations so that his Nazi party did not look to be swaying too Socialistic.  So he did away with the Communists and then the Socialists and banned any other party altogether.  Was Kristallnacht along with other countless tragedies as well as the Holocaust part of his will to power and making Germany a great nation state?  I begin to wonder, did it start out this way?  Did Hitler’s regime begin with this notion to eradicate?  When was the Aryan mentality incorporated?  Or was it his followers like Hermann Goring and propaganda supporters’ like Goebbels insistence?  Was he eventually coerced indirectly by his subordinates’ actions and let continue the massacre in his name?  Or was he just a sadistic lunatic who turned into a mind twisted and warped sicko once in power who saw and plotted the whole thing?  History tells a story; or stories.  Is that the full story or are there other stories?

Max Weber - Politics as a Vocation

          However much esteemed and highly regarded as a classic work of political science, Max Weber’s Politics as a Vocation, was interesting in its own intensity and at times a slow read in terms of trying to comprehend and or imagine the context of his lecture/writing in the given time period.  The following passages caught my attention in terms of Weber’s interpretations of how the journalist and or even the press media are “the most important representatives of the” demagogues. (Weber, p.11).  Politics and Press go together but for who's benefit?

          Modern demagoguery also makes use of oratory, even to a tremendous extent, if one considers the election speeches a modern candidate has to deliver.  But the use of the printed word is more enduring. The political publicist, and above all the journalist, is nowadays the most important representative of the demagogic species. . .

          

          It is almost never acknowledged that the responsibility of the journalist is far greater, and that the sense of responsibility of every honorable journalist is, on the average, not a bit lower than that of the scholar, but rather, as the war has shown, higher. This is because, in the very nature of the case, irresponsible journalistic accomplishments and their often terrible effects are remembered.

          Nobody believes that the discretion of any able journalist ranks above the average of other people, and yet that is the case. . . Naturally every politician of consequence has needed influence over the press and hence has needed relations with the press. . .

          Politicians aside, those wishing to be in positions of leadership often acquire or find the need to involve journalistic work praising their positivity while assuring the public all the while the press media following suit with sensationalism to gain not only readership but reader interest which in mass can sway the readers opinions.

          Interestingly enough, I thought of the media mogul William Hearst in America during this similar time period that used his powers of influence over press and media companies he owned for his own political gains.  Hearst made possible and affordable for the immigrants, the poor and the working class to read his sensationalized newspapers – he believed media was for the masses.  However, documentaries of Hearst also indicated that he created headlines and sensationalized and at times fabricated news stories – he would have a woman faint in the street, have the ambulance called and the woman taken to the hospital in an attempt to create local news stories.  Hearst used his press to leverage against competition, discredit individuals at his whim if he disliked someone and even ruining someone’s reputation – Orson Wells who starred in the movie Citizen Kane gained notable controversy because the movie was a portrayal of then powerful media mogul William Hearst.  I surmise Weber recalled this type of behavior with people of power in using the press media to deliver to the masses for their support of achieving their next prospective seat of power, that, “irresponsible journalistic accomplishments and their often terrible effects are remembered.” (Weber, p.11).

Thus far, the journalist has had favorable chances only in the Social Democratic party. Within the party, editorial positions have been predominantly in the nature of official positions, but editorial positions have not been the basis for positions of leadership.

In the bourgeois parties, on the whole, the chances for ascent to political power along this avenue have rather become worse, as compared with those of the previous generation.

One last thing I’d like to add about the above caption; Weber’s brief introduction touching on the subject of possible censorship within the ‘state’ or political party – that editorial positions correspond to official positions.  Sensationalism or ‘yellow journalism’ which may have worked in previous generations much like how Hearst behaved on the whole, will not work.  

Although journalists may be put on a pedestal, they are in a position of a greater responsibility and as Weber somewhat sarcastically pointed out and referenced Alfred Harmsworth, “’Lord, Northcliffe’” who exercised massive influence over the British popular opinion especially during the time of war using advertising almost as propaganda - “The advertising business is also the avenue along which, during the war, the attempt was made to influence the press politically . . .”

          I ponder how much press freedom there were; press freedom in America endured countless court battles until recently as the 20th century, yet still to this date you hear around the world deaths and murders of journalists.

Weimar Constitution

Reich Constitution of August 11th, 1919

Much like the U.S. Constitution and its legal system, The Reich Constitution of August 11^th 1919 or Weimar Constitution, in the following Articles reveals to me the attempt made by the Weimar Republic at providing hierarchy and structure within their government.

Article 12 As far and as much the Reich does not make use of its right to legislate, the states are entitled to legislate. This does not apply to the areas in which the Reich has the exclusive right to legislate. When it comes to state laws pertaining Article 7 Number 13, the Reich government, inasfar the welfare of the Reich is concerned, has the right to object. Article 13 Reich law breaks state law. If there are doubts or opposing opinions regarding if a state regulation harmonizes with Reich law, the respective Reich or central state authority may request, according to the specifications of Reich law, the Reich supreme court to decide in the matter.

            Similarly as how the U.S. proceeds with allowing independent State legislature albeit Federal legislature taking precedence in matters which elevates to a Federal level, the above Articles state the proposed elevation of law in which the Reich supreme court shall make the ultimate decision; in the U.S., State legal matters may be appealed in higher state courts which at times may even get elevated to Federal courts and ultimately to the SCOTUS.

            Besides hierarchy and structure outlined about the Weimar government system, what enticed me more was Article 118 and about the German’s individual freedom involved.

Article 118 Every German is entitled, within the bounds set by general law, to express his opinion freely in word, writing, print, image or otherwise. No job contract may obstruct him in the exercise of this right; nobody may put him at a disadvantage if he makes use of this right. There is no censorship; in case of the cinema, other regulations may be established by law. Also in order to combat trashy and obscene literature, as well as for the protection of the youth in public exhibitions and performances legal measures are permissible.

Article 123 All Germans have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed; such assemblies do not require any prior notification or special permit. A Reich law can require prior notification for assemblies taking place in the open, and it can, in case of imminent danger for public security, stipulate that such assemblies in the open may be prohibited.

            However loosely termed, much of it sounds similarly to parts of our First Amendment including freedom of speech, expression, assembly and possibly freedom of press.  Also, Article 137, not captioned due to its length, stated freedom of religion that “there is no state church.”  I wonder if the Article also aimed to include Press freedom.  If left solely as an individual freedom as “Every German is entitled”, of course within other guidelines, or “within the bounds set by general law”, I also wonder what the implications of libel or defamation laws there may be.  I surmise much of their defamation laws would have been established through various court cases as is in the U.S., how the loosely termed First Amendment had to endure countless court cases as well as changes in time along with sensible, intellectual Supreme Court justices for the law to be interpreted, structured and established as precedent.

It was cheaper to burn paper money instead of using it to purchase coal or wood for heat.

            What’s mind boggling is the simple fact that, however brief the Weimar Republic, with the type of Constitution established and exercised, how much faith did all those Germans lose about their government to give up or allowed the giving up of such freedoms to the authoritarian then to a dictatorship Nazi Regime.  Of course, as Professor stated in his lecture, there were other factors involved, the turmoil and the aftermath of the revolution which put stress on the economy that eventually led to the hyper-inflation period that made the Germans much more insecure about their government which eventually made easier for Hitler and the Nazi’s to come to power; Hitler used Article 48 which nullified all Articles mentioned above and more along with the power to use armed forces.  As voiced in class lecture, I still feel strongly that Germans almost as sheep in a herd longed for authoritarianism not because they were simpleton as sheep but because of the constant on-going peril they’ve encountered decades long.  For example, the usage of the word “Reich” continued even after the Kaiser had been abandoned – I’m thinking in terms of the German’s conscious or their subconscious in their acceptance of the authoritarian “Empire”.  Perhaps this factor is related and can be said that they did not want to let go?

Spartacus - Junius

          Theoretically The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, portray wonderful ideals without class structured struggles as well as briefly featuring the ideals of how the capitalist society would in time be replaced by Socialism, and then ultimately to Communism. 

          

          During the dilapidated time periods between late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, arose Rosa Luxemburg who had a profound role in German left wing politics.  Considered a Marxist theorist, philosopher, as well as an economist, she had successively been a member of Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD).  Much of the martyrdom-like credit goes to Rosa Luxemburg along with others including Karl Liebknecht who founded what became the Spartacus League – they printed illegal anti-war pamphlets signing their documents “Spartacus” cleverly after the Thracian gladiator who liberated the slaves in opposition to the Romans.  Even during imprisonment for over two years during the war for her attempt to lead Germany’s proletariats to an anti-war general strike, it’s stated that her friends had helped smuggle and illegally publish her articles.  It is said that Rosa Luxemburg’s pseudonym was “Junius” after the Roman Republic founder Lucius Junius Brutus; hence, The Junius Pamphlet.

I found it really difficult to just pick and choose a section of the pamphlet.  In the first chapter, you can almost hear the frustration, the imploring in her voice asking why and what happened.  Their goals were within their grasps, their voices heard, the revolution of the working class, proletariats rising for control and then, the disillusioned and thwarted goal.

"And what did we in Germany experience when the great historical test came? The most precipitous fall, the most violent collapse. Nowhere has the organization of the proletariat been yoked so completely to the service of imperialism. Nowhere is the state of siege borne so docilely.^[6] Nowhere is the press so hobbled, public opinion so stifled, the economic and political class struggle of the working class so totally surrendered as in Germany."

          Perhaps in a sense of atonement she reiterated the working class’s need as a “supreme duty” to reflect, self-criticize “for its weaknesses are only confusion.” 

“But German Social Democracy was not merely the strongest vanguard troop, it was the thinking head of the International. For this reason, we must begin the analysis, the self-examination process, with its fall. It has the duty to begin the salvation of international socialism, that means unsparing criticism of itself. None of the other parties, none of the other classes of bourgeois society, may look clearly and openly into the mirror of their own errors, their own weaknesses, for the mirror reflects their historical limitations and the historical doom that awaits them. The working class can boldly look truth straight in the face, even the bitterest self-renunciation, for its weaknesses are only confusion. The strict law of history gives back its power, stands guarantee for its final victory.Unsparing self-criticism is not merely an essential for its existence but the working class’s supreme duty. On our ship we have the most valuable treasures of mankind, and the proletariat is their ordained guardian! And while bourgeois society, shamed and dishonored by the bloody orgy, rushes headlong toward its doom, the international proletariat must and will gather up the golden treasure that, in a moment of weakness and confusion in the chaos of the world war, it has allowed to sink to the ground.”

          Why did they give it up all almost as if they just gave up? Ah, ok I’m done with this, I’m outta here! kind of attitude one might even venture saying.  This topic came up during the lecture that perhaps they really in actuality wanted someone to tell them what to do or since they’ve voiced their concerns for better working environment and wages, perhaps they were satisfied that their concerns may have been heeded or at least perhaps they’ve gotten their satisfaction of seeing the havoc and damages that they can cause – like a giant rolling its feet causing destruction threatening it can do worse.

Rosa Luxemburg

Rosa Luxemburg also must have been a great orator; she pursuades, she voices, and lets you hear her emotions.  The imagery she portrays about criminals of the world war, the conclusion of the world war, its destruction and what the proletariats now need to do, in her own Marxist-Socialist-Communist ideals of course, is clearly evident in her later work What Does the Spartacus League Want?

“The class rule of the bourgeoisie is the real criminal responsible for the World War, in Germany as in France, in Russia as in England, in Europe as in America. The capitalists of all nations are the real instigators of the mass murder. International capital is the insatiable god Baal, into whose bloody maw millions upon millions of steaming human sacrifices are thrown.

The World War confronts society with the choice: either continuation of capitalism, new wars, and imminent decline into chaos and anarchy, or abolition of capitalist exploitation.

With the conclusion of world war, the class rule of the bourgeoisie has forfeited its right to existence. It is no longer capable of leading society out of the terrible economic collapse which the imperialist orgy has left in its wake.

Means of production have been destroyed on a monstrous scale. Millions of able workers, the finest and strongest sons of the working class, slaughtered. Awaiting the survivors’ return stands the leering misery of unemployment. Famine and disease threaten to sap the strength of the people at its root. The financial bankruptcy of the state, due to the monstrous burdens of the war debt, is inevitable.

Out of all this bloody confusion, this yawning abyss, there is no help, no escape, no rescue other than socialism. Only the revolution of the world proletariat can bring order into this chaos, can bring work and bread for all, can end the reciprocal slaughter of the peoples, can restore peace, freedom, true culture to this martyred humanity. Down with the wage system! That is the slogan of the hour! Instead of wage labor and class rule there must be collective labor. The means of production must cease to be the monopoly of a single class; they must become the common property of all. No more exploiters and exploited! Planned production and distribution of the product in the common interest. Abolition not only of the contemporary mode of production, mere exploitation and robbery, but equally of contemporary commerce, mere fraud.”

          Oh how nice!  No one worker labors more or less than another.  Equal work, equal pay, collective labor for the good of all.  Boring and unchallenging however, I say it may work in theory, but we know it becomes dictatorship-like eventually in practice.  What’s your opinion?

M (1931) - Fritz Lang

In as recent as 2010, the movie M had been ranked as one of the best films of the world cinema by a British Film magazine.  Reports indicated that Lang had based his movie M on real-life serial killers terrorizing Germany during that time in 1920s.

However eccentric Lang was in my opinion, he made possible the foreboding doom with increasing suspense of violence on the children without actually showing any violence.  However ironic, this is incredible insight by Lang as professor Murdaco also added in the lecture, that Germans at this time period were “essentially ‘desensitized’ to violence”. I suspect Lang left that to the audiences’ individual self-imagination of what horrific violence had been done to the children.  Perhaps I’m giving Lang too much credit since apparently in one of the interviews, Lang had told a reporter about his movie M simply that he made the film to caution and inform mothers to be aware about neglecting children.

Ah children. Innocent children and balloons, they so do love balloons don’t they?  Balloons of any kinds, types; balloons associate happiness, celebration, parties, something festive to look forward to!  At least, that’s how my kids are.  You know when you catch a glimpse of a helium balloon soaring into the sky, there’s a child sad nearby sighing.

 

I chose to depict the scene near the opening when Elsie’s abduction, disappearance, her demise was shown with her ball tossed aside rolling away ownerless, then Elsie’s balloon abandoned and adrift caught in the wires then lost over the wind.  It goes back to my opening paragraph that nothing needs to be said or shown to depict the calamity; use your imagination, lighten the situation however you want, but ultimately, the damage had been done.  The manipulative lengthy silence and black screen after the balloon scene also to me portrayed how silence, darkness, can also be in itself nihilistic; almost as how Freud explained our death drive – we have tendencies to spiral into depression and some of us even go further to take our lives.  In that sense, I agree with Freud’s feelings towards his explanation of “compulsive drive towards self-destruction”.

Sad, morose, depressing somewhat; smile, be happy, let your natural high, your endorphins kick in and drive you all away from the “death-drive”.