I've never understood, and always seriously distrusted, Benjamin's concept here. He's talking about what happens in mechanical reproduction when there is no "original" work that can be...like, hung in a space. And my understanding is that this is potentially a positive development in art, because what "aura" does is encourage a sort of cult of beauty centered on the thing itself and not the content.
And that's the opposite of what I originally though reading the essay, which is that something is "lost" when this "aura" is destroyed (and I also think there's some stuff in there about mechanically reproduced stuff having something, but not an "aura." But I REALLY wouldn't go on my word here, I'm bringing it up in the hopes that someone can clarify).
I have a vague sense of what Benjamin is doing, based somewhat on his sorta "post-script" section in which he outlines "politicized aesthetics" (socialist/revoultionary art) and "aestheticized politics" (fascist/reactionary art). I've never even begun to understand this distinction (does it have to do with how explicit the politics are versus an assumption of politics being implicit in the aesthetic? How can we actually tell the difference? Am I missing the point?). I think the "aura" has something to do with a piece of art being seen as "timeless" in its beauty, so that any politics are basically underhandedly, uh, absorbed into the observer?
Anyway, I don't see what any of this has to do with anything -- If I've seen a film, I've had the experience of art (and it's always possible to fetishize something that's mechanically reproduced -- see the cult of Bolex modern experimental filmmakers, many of whom I like, doing just as much fetishizing of the "source," the film itself, as you might of an art object, making quasi-religious rituals out of the film experience). I just don't see how there being some original "thing" has anything to do with my reception of the thing -- how 'bout a fake that everyone thought was real? To a certain degree with this stuff, it has a lot to do with reception, not the nature of the medium or object itself.
no subject
And that's the opposite of what I originally though reading the essay, which is that something is "lost" when this "aura" is destroyed (and I also think there's some stuff in there about mechanically reproduced stuff having something, but not an "aura." But I REALLY wouldn't go on my word here, I'm bringing it up in the hopes that someone can clarify).
I have a vague sense of what Benjamin is doing, based somewhat on his sorta "post-script" section in which he outlines "politicized aesthetics" (socialist/revoultionary art) and "aestheticized politics" (fascist/reactionary art). I've never even begun to understand this distinction (does it have to do with how explicit the politics are versus an assumption of politics being implicit in the aesthetic? How can we actually tell the difference? Am I missing the point?). I think the "aura" has something to do with a piece of art being seen as "timeless" in its beauty, so that any politics are basically underhandedly, uh, absorbed into the observer?
Anyway, I don't see what any of this has to do with anything -- If I've seen a film, I've had the experience of art (and it's always possible to fetishize something that's mechanically reproduced -- see the cult of Bolex modern experimental filmmakers, many of whom I like, doing just as much fetishizing of the "source," the film itself, as you might of an art object, making quasi-religious rituals out of the film experience). I just don't see how there being some original "thing" has anything to do with my reception of the thing -- how 'bout a fake that everyone thought was real? To a certain degree with this stuff, it has a lot to do with reception, not the nature of the medium or object itself.