I loved our past class discussion on Benjamin. I felt his text was very accessible, and he brought some interesting concepts to the table. I find his concepts of cult value and presentation value extremely interesting.
I like how interconnected they are; the values seem opposing but dependent on each another at the same time. I never thought about mechanical reproduction in a positive way before, but Benjamin was able to convince me that there are indeed benefits to this capitalist induced reproduction of art. As a piece is able to reach more people and larger audiences (because of mechanical reproduction) its cult value increases. The piece becomes recognized and it becomes part of the cultural sphere.
Presentation value, on the other hand, decreases with mechanical reproduction. I relate this term to the concept of aura. When a work has just been produced, it posses an aura that takes into account the time and place where it was created. After its creation, the aura gradually decreases naturally; time passes, the work might to transported to other places, etc. However, the process of mechanical reproduction accelerates this decomposition of aura and it decreases the presentation value of a piece. The presentation value has to do with the “proximity” someone is from the original work. In conclusion, as the cult value increases, the presentation value diminishes.
I think Benjamin discussion of mechanical reproduction is important in the contemporary world. With the advance of technology, new form of mechanical reproduction are created everyday. People can take pictures of anything with their phones, we can see pictures of any famous work of art in the internet, we can even skype call someone at a museum! Cult value becomes very important in our society as anyone can mechanically reproduce art easily. I am curious to see how his discussion will evolve in the future.
I really enjoyed talking about this in class as well. I think that it is important to understand the correlation between presentation value and cult value, especially with the popularized nature of art today. While the concept of mechanical reproduction allows a work of art to be shared on various platforms and be seen by a larger audience – the presentation value – the authenticity of the experience of that art is diminished.
ReplyDeleteI find that in our society, artists (in the traditional sense) are left with a choice; create art for the sake of art or to create art to sell art. Our society places more value on financial impact and therefore the cultural concept of art has been diminished. In the music industry, the public’s popularized conception of an “artists” is simply someone her personifies the celebrity lifestyle rather than someone who translates what is in their soul into a work of art. I believe that mechanical reproduction has always been and will always be a double edged sward for art because of the diminishing emphasis on cult value. The current overuse of mechanical reproduction has diminished our social emphasis on the cult value. We have me become so caught up in the physical of art that can be reproduced that we forget to focus on the aspects that cannot be reproduced; the raw emotion, the unique perception, the translation of a specific moment in time.
Mechanical reproduction has also opened the door for new mediums of art. In music, the idea of sampling has become radically popular. The film Copyright Criminals explores the concept of sampling and its impact in the birth of hip-hop and other forms of electronic music. The film also introduces the Eclectic Method, a duo that creates audio/visual mashups using sound bites and video clips. These artists take the concept of mechanical reproduction and use it to create new forms of art.
Copyright Criminals - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIoR3PYpduo
Eclectic Method videos - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od2EqkvCC68
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DFWOFFY71o
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgVdWbxF4-s