9 thoughts on “Week 4 – Media, Culture and Ideology (T4)”
Patricia LOh
In the readings , it is interesting to note how Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer describe that culture is created through the industry of capitalism and which the mass entails standardization, mass production and uni-directionality. It also states how mass culture makes it difficult for us to gain a sense of being exploited, because the culture that we adopt and consumed, is a major giant legitimation of capitalism of our own exploitation. Thus in this way, we often turn to sources of entertainment after a long day of work to re-energized ourselves from the hard day’s labor ,only to get back into the mechanized production of labor the next day. Furthermore, this sort of entertainment that we seek, be it in the form of movie marathon or excessive shopping after a long day of labor,is meaningless,as we do not see the relations of production behind it, we forget how bad our day is,after indulging in these forms of entertainment.
While Benjamin talks about technical reproducibility, where we see the world being presented to us through mazagines etc,when we actually know that it is not like that in reality and that authenticity in this case does not mean how real the object is ,but rather more about the object’s existence in time in a real world as oppose to a projected world of the reproduced image.
Mohammad Syafiq
The idea of control and hegemony has always been a prevalent theme in Western thought and philosophy, before finding itself in more common expressions like “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression”. But this idea of freedom finds itself in a very awkward place – as already shown by Rousseau’s attempt at trying to define a social contract between the unlimited freedom and the restriction of rights. I guess one way or another, we are never free from any sort of ideology; Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument, I suppose, completely presumes that there the man out of the “mass” cannot and does not have any thought processes allowing him the freedom of choice.
The same thing goes for the Internet. It is something that is so general as to be predictable, yet it is completely diverse that getting the odds right seem about one in a thousand. What do I mean by this? Look at the way marketing and PR firms plan their campaigns. They base their ideas on a case study, perhaps from past campaigns, from research – they note patterns, variations and choices. But in any case – the campaigns are so carefully tailored to each age group: the campaigns may flop, or might succeed beyond any measure. Look at the Volvo ad involving van Damme. Who would have thought an advertisement for lorries could have got over two million views?
But I digress. Before the internet, there was the TV (I know it is not THAT linear a timeline, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s just think it so). The question on the minds of everyone (perpetrated, I guess, by the advent of the Matrix movies) was, “Does the TV control your thought?” Now that there’s the Internet, I guess it follows that the people (as in the conspiracy theorists) would ask, “Who controls the Internet?” Can we so easily answer that question? I don’t think so. As I have said, the Internet is both predictable and yet highly volatile. “Ephemerality” does not even describe the stuff found the Internet – fleeting sounds more like it. In any case, the idea of “control” of our thought and our actions, and to have the freedom for it, as I have pointed out, is an old concept garbed in modern clothes. As many Internet users are unaware, one way or another they ARE being controlled by the Internet. Their patronage gives the websites “authority”. Users “connect” with both bloggers and vloggers on the blogsites and on Youtube.
In the beginning of “A Cultural Approach to Communication”, Carey quoted Dewey’s claim “of all things communication is the most wonderful” and went on further to discuss about his work and ideas. When I first read that quote, I wondered what made Dewey say that and why Carey decided to use it for his article.
As I read on, Carey discussed about his two alternative conceptions of communication: a transmission view of communication and a ritual view of communication. In the transmission view, communication is linked to terms such as “imparting” and “giving information to others”. He defines it as a process where “messages are transmitted and distributed in space for the control of distance of people”. On the other hand, in the ritual view, communication is linked to terms such as “sharing”, “participation” and “fellowship”. It is also associated with the common roots of the terms “commonness” and “community”. In this case, communication becomes a process that aids in the maintenance of society in time and it also acts as a representation of shared beliefs.
He soon returns to the topic of Dewey and explains the earlier quote. According to Carey, Dewey emphasises on the ritual view of communication, and to him the process is wonderful because it acts as a basis of human fellowship: it produces the social bonds that tie humans together and makes society possible. Looking at communication from this point of view, and also taking into account how communication as an activity is usually taken for granted, I was finally able to understand why that quote was used.
In his article, Carey not only expands and gives readers a better insight into the concept of communication, but he also reminds us that even the most ordinary and ordinary phenomena should be studied.
Gareth Nah
In their articles, Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin express their concerns about the negative impacts of the culture industry on art and culture itself. Adorno & Horkheimer have reservations about the Enlightenment, believing it to be a form of deception of the masses, with the intended effect of people consuming mass-produced and mechanized forms of art, often blindly or in a misinformed manner. To them, the mass production and mechanization of art resulted in its commoditization and cheapening, thus devaluing it despite making it more accessible to the masses.
Benjamin largely concurs with them, writing about the loss of “aura” or authenticity suffered by works of art when they are subjected to mechanical and large-scale reproduction. While the “Age of Mechanical Reproduction” certainly increases the accessibility of art, by greatly negating the constraints of time and space, Benjamin laments what he views as the accompanying loss of the essence of art.
While Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin do provide some insightful and valid viewpoints on the commoditization of art and the culture industry, I opine that their views are unnecessarily pessimistic about the fate of the industry. In particular, Adorno & Horkheimer’s views on the industry being perverted as a form of mass control seem to me as being slightly extremist. Indeed, they appear to overestimate art’s potential to control the direction society takes.
While the mechanical reproduction of art forms undoubtedly gives rise to some degree of standardization and uniformity, it appears preposterous to me that the consumption of art could be hijacked and manipulated by capitalists to rob consumers of their individuality and make them conform to their prescribed ideologies. Indeed, I fail to conceive how enhancing art’s accessibility can give rise to its use as an ideological apparatus.
Conversely, the increased accessibility and proliferation of art may promote and diversify discourse on individual pieces as well as the culture industry as a whole. Bearing in mind that consumers do not just passively receive art, but are free to exercise their agency in their interpretations and reactions to it, the massification of art and its related industries may well contribute to a more vibrant and diverse arts scene, in which more segments of society may partake of art and react in their own unique ways. A richer and more varied discourse, with numerous opposing views and interpretations, may be anticipated. Evidence of this may be observed today, as fierce critics of even established and celebrated artists abound.
To this end, I find it heartening to note the rising prominence of initiatives such as the internationally-renowned Affordable Art Fair, which offers a reputable alternative to traditional high art culture. By making art more accessible to the masses, we can expect greater participation in the global arts scene, with more consumers and critics contributing to a global arts community of sorts. A more artistically-informed and aware global population is an expected, and welcome, outcome.
Lucy ab Molloy
(I am from T1 but am swapping into this week because I couldn’t make my tutorial yesterday have cleared this with Sam)
Media, culture and ideology.
Three very loaded terms.
Each with different connotations depending on the context..
Within the UK the media is the driving force for a set of ideological positions that relate to the culture, which surrounds their readership.
Take for example, the right wing media outlet ‘The Daily Mail’
It caters to a largely ignorant clientele who feel alienated by the globalisation which is occurring within the 21st century. They are hungry for someone to blame for the lack of job opportunities and the ever increasing multicultural environment which makes them feel uncomfortable. Historically, migration has been an essential part of human development. Currently in the UK, immigration has become a scapegoat for the failings of certain governments. The ideology that migrants are to blame for economic upheaval and a reduction in job opportunities is largely unfounded. This scapegoating has been facilitated by a number of media outlets. Which, as a result has fostered a culture of resentment and racism. I do not wish to reduce migration to such basic terms, it is a complex topic which is influenced by a range of factors. However, in this instance and for the sake of argument it is an example of how media, culture and ideology are intrinsically interlinked and are tools through which governments can influence the attitudes and behaviour of their citizens.
James Ang
Adorno and Horkheimer criticized the culture industry as the oppressor of freedom and individualism through the production of mass culture. To them, Mass culture is a byproduct of capitalism. The culture indsutry denotes standardization and is seen as a tool of mass control. Through various examples, they highlighted how the industry is subjecting consumers to their ideologies and making them conform to those ideologies. They argue that this leads to a dulling of criticality as the mass production are not reflective of reality. This dulling of criticality negates individuality.
While their arguments are helpful in identifying how the problems with the culture industry, I felt that their arguments are too theoretical. Their arguments reduce the consumers to passive people who receive and believe whatever we see.
We are not passive people. We have minds of our own and we do not simply receive and agree. There are cases whereby consumers reject the ideologies imposed by the culture industry. Punk culture is an example of that. Punk entails a culture that rebels against mainstream values in society. It is also the reason why some view punk culture as a form of deviance. The style of punk music was all about freedom whereby its lyrics are anti-authoritarian. Punk music connotes uncovering one’s own power. It is about being and doing what one wanted to be and do.
Hence, Adorno and Horkheimer theory could have been more holistic and practical if they recognized that the consumers do resist against mass culture. Individualism is not necessarily negated by mass culture.
Tan Zhuan Liang
Horkheimer and Adorno argued that the unprecedented rise in the forces of production in modern times had an effect opposite from that anticipated by Marx. Instead of being an explosive force conductive to revolution, the expansion of technology had resulted in mass deception.
This system of technocratic despotism was an outgrowth of the self-destruction of liberal society and the rise of monopoly capitalism. This has diluted the individual’s sphere of autonomy. The rise of mass culture and the decline of traditional art were symptoms of a more thorough-going decline in the forces of negation in modern society, a process which is unidirectional.Symptomatic of this decline were totalitarian mass movements like fascism and the erosion of the patriarchal authority of the bourgeois family.
The spread of technology, as explained by the transmission conception of communication by Carey, served the culture industry in U.S., just as it helped tighten the control of authoritarian governments in Europe. This led to a sweeping transformation in the conditions of the production and distribution of culture, which spelled the erosion of the free circulation of cultural works in the bourgeois era and their monopolistic control by the culture industry.
The decline in the conditions of circulation and production permitted the wholesale standardization was apparent in the culture industry’s promulgation of hit songs, creation of singing and movie stars, and reliance on a series of invariant types, slogans, and repetitive formulas. The content of mass culture tended to be interchangeable, art being subject to a positivist form of calculation and planning. Gags, formulas, and clichés were calculated for their effects by special teams of experts, the lengths of stories rigidly adhered to, and the endings of films wholly predictable from the outset. Standardization was a species of technical rationality, in which culture was purged of all spontaneity and novelty. Intrinsic worth was calculated in advance for the sole purpose of achieving maximum profitability Moreover, standardization had as its complement the technique of endowing mass-produced commodities with an illusory aura of individuality, which he called pseudo-individuation.
This is still relevant in today’s capitalistic society, where mass culture is used to legitimize and conceal the basis of capitalism like the acts of exploitation and alienation. For example, the tv shows and movies normally provide a happy fairy-tale like ending to paint a optimistic reality creating a sense of alienation from their harsh reality, assuming we all go through work battered and scathed. Even by paying subscription fees and movie stubs, we discreetly contribute to the capitalist economy structure which then creates a cycle of repeated work-leisure-rest lifestyle where the bourgeois benefits at the end as the profits continue to grow along with their greed for profits.
Russell Lim Fang Yu
I find Walter Benjamin’s take on “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, too limiting and negative in the context of our current world. Rather than take the view that the reproducibility of art will diminish its aura and uniqueness, I’d like to think that Mechanical Reproduction actually helps certain art forms to thrive. Video games are one such example of an art form that flourishes because of how they are mass produced and experienced by many. Multi-player games, which offer gamers another type of experience, would not have been possible without such reproducibility (of the software). When playing a really good game with diverse options and worlds, I do not see how my experiences or the work itself are not ‘unique’.
In this regard, I think that we may challenge the notion that mechanically reproduced art, or art for the masses, are necessarily ‘bad’ art. Just as the brush is a tool for the painter’s expression, machines may also be tools for such expression.
Lee Wei Jie
Under the reading article by Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, I would like to summarise Benjamin’s notion of mechanical reproduction.
Mechanical reproduction of a product essentially has an effect of causing the aura of the work of art to wither. This occurs throughout liquifying the traditional value of the work of art in the certain cultural heritage it is portraying. This highly suggests that the cultural product is reduced in what Benjamin terms as its ‘authenticity’; where ‘the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value.’ (p.g. 224). In other words, mechanical reproduction goes away with the notion of the ritual (e.g. what is ‘pure’ art?).
Benjamin identifies this through the polarising sides of the use of works of art. A particular work of art is ‘authentic’ and artistic when it presupposes the ‘prominence of the cult value’; the artistic production intended for cults. When man removes the work of art from the cult and in turn increases the opportunities for the possession of the product to the masses, the work of art transits to the exhibition value. This means that the work of art does not hold any longer the authentic, cultish and elitist value conferred to it, but is given to the masses in begin redesigned for reproducibility.
Walter Benjamin then suggests that the rise of mechanical reproduction affects changes to the mass societal reaction towards art. Changes in the form of the work of art would also lead to changes in human’s perceptions of it, of which affects to changes in the modes of society. Benjamin suggests that the modern mechanical reproduction of works of art has changed the societal perception in such a way where, in the example of a film, the fast moving images robs society of the autonomy for individual thought, but their perceptions are subjugated by the moving images itself.
In the readings , it is interesting to note how Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer describe that culture is created through the industry of capitalism and which the mass entails standardization, mass production and uni-directionality. It also states how mass culture makes it difficult for us to gain a sense of being exploited, because the culture that we adopt and consumed, is a major giant legitimation of capitalism of our own exploitation. Thus in this way, we often turn to sources of entertainment after a long day of work to re-energized ourselves from the hard day’s labor ,only to get back into the mechanized production of labor the next day. Furthermore, this sort of entertainment that we seek, be it in the form of movie marathon or excessive shopping after a long day of labor,is meaningless,as we do not see the relations of production behind it, we forget how bad our day is,after indulging in these forms of entertainment.
While Benjamin talks about technical reproducibility, where we see the world being presented to us through mazagines etc,when we actually know that it is not like that in reality and that authenticity in this case does not mean how real the object is ,but rather more about the object’s existence in time in a real world as oppose to a projected world of the reproduced image.
The idea of control and hegemony has always been a prevalent theme in Western thought and philosophy, before finding itself in more common expressions like “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression”. But this idea of freedom finds itself in a very awkward place – as already shown by Rousseau’s attempt at trying to define a social contract between the unlimited freedom and the restriction of rights. I guess one way or another, we are never free from any sort of ideology; Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument, I suppose, completely presumes that there the man out of the “mass” cannot and does not have any thought processes allowing him the freedom of choice.
The same thing goes for the Internet. It is something that is so general as to be predictable, yet it is completely diverse that getting the odds right seem about one in a thousand. What do I mean by this? Look at the way marketing and PR firms plan their campaigns. They base their ideas on a case study, perhaps from past campaigns, from research – they note patterns, variations and choices. But in any case – the campaigns are so carefully tailored to each age group: the campaigns may flop, or might succeed beyond any measure. Look at the Volvo ad involving van Damme. Who would have thought an advertisement for lorries could have got over two million views?
But I digress. Before the internet, there was the TV (I know it is not THAT linear a timeline, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s just think it so). The question on the minds of everyone (perpetrated, I guess, by the advent of the Matrix movies) was, “Does the TV control your thought?” Now that there’s the Internet, I guess it follows that the people (as in the conspiracy theorists) would ask, “Who controls the Internet?” Can we so easily answer that question? I don’t think so. As I have said, the Internet is both predictable and yet highly volatile. “Ephemerality” does not even describe the stuff found the Internet – fleeting sounds more like it. In any case, the idea of “control” of our thought and our actions, and to have the freedom for it, as I have pointed out, is an old concept garbed in modern clothes. As many Internet users are unaware, one way or another they ARE being controlled by the Internet. Their patronage gives the websites “authority”. Users “connect” with both bloggers and vloggers on the blogsites and on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6HR8DpUxq0
In the beginning of “A Cultural Approach to Communication”, Carey quoted Dewey’s claim “of all things communication is the most wonderful” and went on further to discuss about his work and ideas. When I first read that quote, I wondered what made Dewey say that and why Carey decided to use it for his article.
As I read on, Carey discussed about his two alternative conceptions of communication: a transmission view of communication and a ritual view of communication. In the transmission view, communication is linked to terms such as “imparting” and “giving information to others”. He defines it as a process where “messages are transmitted and distributed in space for the control of distance of people”. On the other hand, in the ritual view, communication is linked to terms such as “sharing”, “participation” and “fellowship”. It is also associated with the common roots of the terms “commonness” and “community”. In this case, communication becomes a process that aids in the maintenance of society in time and it also acts as a representation of shared beliefs.
He soon returns to the topic of Dewey and explains the earlier quote. According to Carey, Dewey emphasises on the ritual view of communication, and to him the process is wonderful because it acts as a basis of human fellowship: it produces the social bonds that tie humans together and makes society possible. Looking at communication from this point of view, and also taking into account how communication as an activity is usually taken for granted, I was finally able to understand why that quote was used.
In his article, Carey not only expands and gives readers a better insight into the concept of communication, but he also reminds us that even the most ordinary and ordinary phenomena should be studied.
In their articles, Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin express their concerns about the negative impacts of the culture industry on art and culture itself. Adorno & Horkheimer have reservations about the Enlightenment, believing it to be a form of deception of the masses, with the intended effect of people consuming mass-produced and mechanized forms of art, often blindly or in a misinformed manner. To them, the mass production and mechanization of art resulted in its commoditization and cheapening, thus devaluing it despite making it more accessible to the masses.
Benjamin largely concurs with them, writing about the loss of “aura” or authenticity suffered by works of art when they are subjected to mechanical and large-scale reproduction. While the “Age of Mechanical Reproduction” certainly increases the accessibility of art, by greatly negating the constraints of time and space, Benjamin laments what he views as the accompanying loss of the essence of art.
While Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin do provide some insightful and valid viewpoints on the commoditization of art and the culture industry, I opine that their views are unnecessarily pessimistic about the fate of the industry. In particular, Adorno & Horkheimer’s views on the industry being perverted as a form of mass control seem to me as being slightly extremist. Indeed, they appear to overestimate art’s potential to control the direction society takes.
While the mechanical reproduction of art forms undoubtedly gives rise to some degree of standardization and uniformity, it appears preposterous to me that the consumption of art could be hijacked and manipulated by capitalists to rob consumers of their individuality and make them conform to their prescribed ideologies. Indeed, I fail to conceive how enhancing art’s accessibility can give rise to its use as an ideological apparatus.
Conversely, the increased accessibility and proliferation of art may promote and diversify discourse on individual pieces as well as the culture industry as a whole. Bearing in mind that consumers do not just passively receive art, but are free to exercise their agency in their interpretations and reactions to it, the massification of art and its related industries may well contribute to a more vibrant and diverse arts scene, in which more segments of society may partake of art and react in their own unique ways. A richer and more varied discourse, with numerous opposing views and interpretations, may be anticipated. Evidence of this may be observed today, as fierce critics of even established and celebrated artists abound.
To this end, I find it heartening to note the rising prominence of initiatives such as the internationally-renowned Affordable Art Fair, which offers a reputable alternative to traditional high art culture. By making art more accessible to the masses, we can expect greater participation in the global arts scene, with more consumers and critics contributing to a global arts community of sorts. A more artistically-informed and aware global population is an expected, and welcome, outcome.
(I am from T1 but am swapping into this week because I couldn’t make my tutorial yesterday have cleared this with Sam)
Media, culture and ideology.
Three very loaded terms.
Each with different connotations depending on the context..
Within the UK the media is the driving force for a set of ideological positions that relate to the culture, which surrounds their readership.
Take for example, the right wing media outlet ‘The Daily Mail’
It caters to a largely ignorant clientele who feel alienated by the globalisation which is occurring within the 21st century. They are hungry for someone to blame for the lack of job opportunities and the ever increasing multicultural environment which makes them feel uncomfortable. Historically, migration has been an essential part of human development. Currently in the UK, immigration has become a scapegoat for the failings of certain governments. The ideology that migrants are to blame for economic upheaval and a reduction in job opportunities is largely unfounded. This scapegoating has been facilitated by a number of media outlets. Which, as a result has fostered a culture of resentment and racism. I do not wish to reduce migration to such basic terms, it is a complex topic which is influenced by a range of factors. However, in this instance and for the sake of argument it is an example of how media, culture and ideology are intrinsically interlinked and are tools through which governments can influence the attitudes and behaviour of their citizens.
Adorno and Horkheimer criticized the culture industry as the oppressor of freedom and individualism through the production of mass culture. To them, Mass culture is a byproduct of capitalism. The culture indsutry denotes standardization and is seen as a tool of mass control. Through various examples, they highlighted how the industry is subjecting consumers to their ideologies and making them conform to those ideologies. They argue that this leads to a dulling of criticality as the mass production are not reflective of reality. This dulling of criticality negates individuality.
While their arguments are helpful in identifying how the problems with the culture industry, I felt that their arguments are too theoretical. Their arguments reduce the consumers to passive people who receive and believe whatever we see.
We are not passive people. We have minds of our own and we do not simply receive and agree. There are cases whereby consumers reject the ideologies imposed by the culture industry. Punk culture is an example of that. Punk entails a culture that rebels against mainstream values in society. It is also the reason why some view punk culture as a form of deviance. The style of punk music was all about freedom whereby its lyrics are anti-authoritarian. Punk music connotes uncovering one’s own power. It is about being and doing what one wanted to be and do.
Hence, Adorno and Horkheimer theory could have been more holistic and practical if they recognized that the consumers do resist against mass culture. Individualism is not necessarily negated by mass culture.
Horkheimer and Adorno argued that the unprecedented rise in the forces of production in modern times had an effect opposite from that anticipated by Marx. Instead of being an explosive force conductive to revolution, the expansion of technology had resulted in mass deception.
This system of technocratic despotism was an outgrowth of the self-destruction of liberal society and the rise of monopoly capitalism. This has diluted the individual’s sphere of autonomy. The rise of mass culture and the decline of traditional art were symptoms of a more thorough-going decline in the forces of negation in modern society, a process which is unidirectional.Symptomatic of this decline were totalitarian mass movements like fascism and the erosion of the patriarchal authority of the bourgeois family.
The spread of technology, as explained by the transmission conception of communication by Carey, served the culture industry in U.S., just as it helped tighten the control of authoritarian governments in Europe. This led to a sweeping transformation in the conditions of the production and distribution of culture, which spelled the erosion of the free circulation of cultural works in the bourgeois era and their monopolistic control by the culture industry.
The decline in the conditions of circulation and production permitted the wholesale standardization was apparent in the culture industry’s promulgation of hit songs, creation of singing and movie stars, and reliance on a series of invariant types, slogans, and repetitive formulas. The content of mass culture tended to be interchangeable, art being subject to a positivist form of calculation and planning. Gags, formulas, and clichés were calculated for their effects by special teams of experts, the lengths of stories rigidly adhered to, and the endings of films wholly predictable from the outset. Standardization was a species of technical rationality, in which culture was purged of all spontaneity and novelty. Intrinsic worth was calculated in advance for the sole purpose of achieving maximum profitability Moreover, standardization had as its complement the technique of endowing mass-produced commodities with an illusory aura of individuality, which he called pseudo-individuation.
This is still relevant in today’s capitalistic society, where mass culture is used to legitimize and conceal the basis of capitalism like the acts of exploitation and alienation. For example, the tv shows and movies normally provide a happy fairy-tale like ending to paint a optimistic reality creating a sense of alienation from their harsh reality, assuming we all go through work battered and scathed. Even by paying subscription fees and movie stubs, we discreetly contribute to the capitalist economy structure which then creates a cycle of repeated work-leisure-rest lifestyle where the bourgeois benefits at the end as the profits continue to grow along with their greed for profits.
I find Walter Benjamin’s take on “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, too limiting and negative in the context of our current world. Rather than take the view that the reproducibility of art will diminish its aura and uniqueness, I’d like to think that Mechanical Reproduction actually helps certain art forms to thrive. Video games are one such example of an art form that flourishes because of how they are mass produced and experienced by many. Multi-player games, which offer gamers another type of experience, would not have been possible without such reproducibility (of the software). When playing a really good game with diverse options and worlds, I do not see how my experiences or the work itself are not ‘unique’.
In this regard, I think that we may challenge the notion that mechanically reproduced art, or art for the masses, are necessarily ‘bad’ art. Just as the brush is a tool for the painter’s expression, machines may also be tools for such expression.
Under the reading article by Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, I would like to summarise Benjamin’s notion of mechanical reproduction.
Mechanical reproduction of a product essentially has an effect of causing the aura of the work of art to wither. This occurs throughout liquifying the traditional value of the work of art in the certain cultural heritage it is portraying. This highly suggests that the cultural product is reduced in what Benjamin terms as its ‘authenticity’; where ‘the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value.’ (p.g. 224). In other words, mechanical reproduction goes away with the notion of the ritual (e.g. what is ‘pure’ art?).
Benjamin identifies this through the polarising sides of the use of works of art. A particular work of art is ‘authentic’ and artistic when it presupposes the ‘prominence of the cult value’; the artistic production intended for cults. When man removes the work of art from the cult and in turn increases the opportunities for the possession of the product to the masses, the work of art transits to the exhibition value. This means that the work of art does not hold any longer the authentic, cultish and elitist value conferred to it, but is given to the masses in begin redesigned for reproducibility.
Walter Benjamin then suggests that the rise of mechanical reproduction affects changes to the mass societal reaction towards art. Changes in the form of the work of art would also lead to changes in human’s perceptions of it, of which affects to changes in the modes of society. Benjamin suggests that the modern mechanical reproduction of works of art has changed the societal perception in such a way where, in the example of a film, the fast moving images robs society of the autonomy for individual thought, but their perceptions are subjugated by the moving images itself.