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.