Walter benjamin's chinease nightmare
by Michael Cairo
Art in our day-to-day lives is so ubiquitous that we barely seem to take notice of it. Whether its some semi-adequate wall art or a cute keychain charm, we all seem to mindlessly bypass the flood of artistic media presented to us. This phenomenon boils down to two essential questions: a) Has the mode of art in the age of reproduction made art so common that we are desensitized to subtle beauty? b) Is there too much art and aesthetically pleasing material in our daily lives regardless of the current mode of art to have us stop and appreciate it? The two questions seem to embody two opposing viewpoints, both of which, when answered, provide a complete outlook on the underlying universal presence of art. To answer both: it is more than apparent that art in the age of mechanical reproduction has desensitized us to the authenticity of artworks (to be elaborated on later), but art has always been extremely present in our everyday lives, just in past modes of production, originality was present in each piece significantly more than today.
So, in accordance with Walter Benjamin’s theory: What pieces of art would express this lack of originality present in our mode of production and how does it reflect the changing status of society under advanced capitalism? One of the best examples that fits the description presented in the question most completely would be mass produced reproductions of famous artworks for sale at large corporate department stores for astonishingly low prices. Works like these make half decent replicas of expensive and cherished masterpieces available to the public for little cost. What then, would Walter Benjamin have to say negative about such art in accordance with “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”?
Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) was German neo-Marxist of the Frankfurt school which primarily focused on applying Marxist theory to facets of society forgotten by Marx and Marxists of his time. His works also followed and analyzed the effects of what is referred to as advanced capitalism, a concept that displays how under the capitalist system, the mode of production and outlook penetrate deeply into all facets of society. On this idea (expressed in his introduction to The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction) he explains how the reproduction of art depreciates the original by destroying the aura of presence, and how reproductions changes art so that it is done for the sake of reproduction and not for the traditional purposes art is made for like the satisfaction of cults (both secular and religious). The challenge in this analysis as being applied to replica paintings is that for the majority of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical ReproductionBenjamin analyses the newly developing reproduction based arts of his age: film and photography. The problem lies that our replica paintings are not photographs but actual re-paintings of the masterpieces. What is the problem then? Wouldn’t that be real art if it is hand painted? More importantly, would the mode of production and intent of the artwork affect the status of what is actually [good] art or not?
The largest “art factories” where most all these paintings come from is from the sweatshop village of Dafen, China. In Dafen, a working force of thousands of “worker painters” work day in and day out for horrifyingly low wages on cheap, low quality replicas of paintings to later be sold to large corporations like WalMart and Target. Benjamin was correct in his essay when he says that the mode of producing art is reflective of the social conditions of a time, and it is necessary for us to analyze how our art is being made in order for us to point out our interests. Present in Dafen is an industry focused wholly on the replication and hence depreciation of art for the gain of capital. Not only, according to Benjamin, does this industry destroy the tradition of art but it also slaughters the uniqueness of the original piece. Dafen serves as the epitome of advanced capitalism as now even art is being made under the bourgeois mode of production. Contrary to his paper (only because he never saw this industry form) yet still in accordance with his Marxist philosophy, this mode of reproduction has NOT become an art of its own. Benjamin cites examples like lithography and wood-etch printing (like the works of Albrecht Durer) as forms of replications that have become arts themselves but the capitalist mode of art production has finally reached a mode of assembly line production that is not an art on itself (rather, a person by person stroke by stroke factory assemblage). The paintings also achieve a greater amount of dissidence appearance wise to the original by comparison to a photo replication which proves a two-fold fulfillment of Benjamin’s predictions: a) photo replicas are less pleasing than what is closer to the original in physical material (but not appearance) b) replicas fail to capture the originality in both idea and aura of the original and obstruct the tradition of art.
What we find in assembly line art is a mutilation of what used to be known as the fine arts. The scary contradiction is that some replica paintings can be rather aesthetically pleasing. The problem is that not only is the mode of replication of an art piece not an art itself, but it also creates for a new cult: not the secular cult of beauty founded in the renaissance, or the theistic cult of art based on medieval Catholicism, but the cult of capital. And it is only in accordance with Benjamin and other Marxists of the Frankfurt school to disable the destructive monster from inside out by utilizing replicated art to promote a return to art for arts sake, not the sake of capital. Though one could make the argument that replica art brings art to the people, it can quickly be countered by reminding the person that a) the replica art is not fine art by any means b) the purchase of replica art depreciates the value of true art c) the only person winning in the transaction is the bourgeois who runs the mega-retail store you bought it from. It is our call to return to originality in order to save the inherently human task we call art, as advanced capitalism continues to develop, art becomes more and more integrated into the cult of capital and politics, and as Benjamin put it in his essay: the only thing that art in the age of mechanical reproduction is good for is that it is “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art.”
So, in accordance with Walter Benjamin’s theory: What pieces of art would express this lack of originality present in our mode of production and how does it reflect the changing status of society under advanced capitalism? One of the best examples that fits the description presented in the question most completely would be mass produced reproductions of famous artworks for sale at large corporate department stores for astonishingly low prices. Works like these make half decent replicas of expensive and cherished masterpieces available to the public for little cost. What then, would Walter Benjamin have to say negative about such art in accordance with “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”?
Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) was German neo-Marxist of the Frankfurt school which primarily focused on applying Marxist theory to facets of society forgotten by Marx and Marxists of his time. His works also followed and analyzed the effects of what is referred to as advanced capitalism, a concept that displays how under the capitalist system, the mode of production and outlook penetrate deeply into all facets of society. On this idea (expressed in his introduction to The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction) he explains how the reproduction of art depreciates the original by destroying the aura of presence, and how reproductions changes art so that it is done for the sake of reproduction and not for the traditional purposes art is made for like the satisfaction of cults (both secular and religious). The challenge in this analysis as being applied to replica paintings is that for the majority of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical ReproductionBenjamin analyses the newly developing reproduction based arts of his age: film and photography. The problem lies that our replica paintings are not photographs but actual re-paintings of the masterpieces. What is the problem then? Wouldn’t that be real art if it is hand painted? More importantly, would the mode of production and intent of the artwork affect the status of what is actually [good] art or not?
The largest “art factories” where most all these paintings come from is from the sweatshop village of Dafen, China. In Dafen, a working force of thousands of “worker painters” work day in and day out for horrifyingly low wages on cheap, low quality replicas of paintings to later be sold to large corporations like WalMart and Target. Benjamin was correct in his essay when he says that the mode of producing art is reflective of the social conditions of a time, and it is necessary for us to analyze how our art is being made in order for us to point out our interests. Present in Dafen is an industry focused wholly on the replication and hence depreciation of art for the gain of capital. Not only, according to Benjamin, does this industry destroy the tradition of art but it also slaughters the uniqueness of the original piece. Dafen serves as the epitome of advanced capitalism as now even art is being made under the bourgeois mode of production. Contrary to his paper (only because he never saw this industry form) yet still in accordance with his Marxist philosophy, this mode of reproduction has NOT become an art of its own. Benjamin cites examples like lithography and wood-etch printing (like the works of Albrecht Durer) as forms of replications that have become arts themselves but the capitalist mode of art production has finally reached a mode of assembly line production that is not an art on itself (rather, a person by person stroke by stroke factory assemblage). The paintings also achieve a greater amount of dissidence appearance wise to the original by comparison to a photo replication which proves a two-fold fulfillment of Benjamin’s predictions: a) photo replicas are less pleasing than what is closer to the original in physical material (but not appearance) b) replicas fail to capture the originality in both idea and aura of the original and obstruct the tradition of art.
What we find in assembly line art is a mutilation of what used to be known as the fine arts. The scary contradiction is that some replica paintings can be rather aesthetically pleasing. The problem is that not only is the mode of replication of an art piece not an art itself, but it also creates for a new cult: not the secular cult of beauty founded in the renaissance, or the theistic cult of art based on medieval Catholicism, but the cult of capital. And it is only in accordance with Benjamin and other Marxists of the Frankfurt school to disable the destructive monster from inside out by utilizing replicated art to promote a return to art for arts sake, not the sake of capital. Though one could make the argument that replica art brings art to the people, it can quickly be countered by reminding the person that a) the replica art is not fine art by any means b) the purchase of replica art depreciates the value of true art c) the only person winning in the transaction is the bourgeois who runs the mega-retail store you bought it from. It is our call to return to originality in order to save the inherently human task we call art, as advanced capitalism continues to develop, art becomes more and more integrated into the cult of capital and politics, and as Benjamin put it in his essay: the only thing that art in the age of mechanical reproduction is good for is that it is “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art.”