![]() ![]() The historical perspective suggests that the described effect is common among individuals as well as societies. Since it cannot be boiled down to the simple and specific set of factors, I consider the concept of aura suggested by Benjamin an acceptable substitute. While it is hard to conclusively describe what exactly is responsible for such a reaction, I consider the complex interconnection of experiences, values, and beliefs the most likely candidate. There is little doubt in the fact that a truly magnificent work of art triggers a strong emotion that is hard to describe or qualify. The former assumption is relatively easy to agree with based solely on the personal experience and the observations of others’ reactions, both individually and on a broad scale. The second is the ability of the mechanical reproduction to devaluate art by destroying the aura, or, rather, the impossibility of transferring it onto the copy. The first assumption is the existence of an imperceptible aura which explains the feelings invoked by the works of art. EvaluationĪs can be seen from the summary, there are two main points used by the author to build his argument. In simple terms, modern society does not need the experience of artistic aura anymore and is instead satisfied with the mediating nature of the institutions in question. ![]() Importantly, such change is both acknowledged by the participants and is aligned with their needs. This situation, according to Benjamin, leads to a scenario where the institutions that were sacred and unique are becoming equalized. Such copying, however, is not detrimental to aura since it lacks the mechanical component. Interestingly, the author also recognizes the fact that works of art have been copied throughout history and before the formation of capitalistic societies. The attempts to exclude the political and social influences in an attempt to refine art in its purest form also fall under this category and signify the antagonism between art and capitalistic values. Specifically, he argues that the tendency of the modern art movements to distance themselves from the mundane and their goal of becoming detached from the society can be considered a form of self-preservation that aims at the same outcome as the early religious organizations (Benjamin, 1939). To support his position, Benjamin provides several arguments that confirm the recognition of and reaction to the phenomenon in modern times. However, once an object is duplicated, the aura is not transferred to the copy, stripping it of its artistic and/or ritual merits. In other words, the presence of aura ensured the masterpiece’s central position in the magical rituals of the societies and, by extension, became the foundation of the cultural and ritual tradition (e.g., a religious inspiration).Ī ritualistic idol, for example, was able to communicate the sense of power and supernatural authority precisely because of the aura in it (Benjamin, 1939). Since the primary artistic value of the works of art throughout history was cultic in origin – that is, serving to sustain the belief in and fear of the supernatural – aura can be considered the essence of any artwork. Aura is an imperceptible and elusive vibe attained by a work of art as a result of its creation and serving as a basis for the feelings of awe and divine inspiration experienced upon exposure to the masterpiece. To further clarify his position, the author introduces the concept of aura. According to Benjamin (1939), the fact that works of art can be reproduced in large quantities devaluates their artistic merits. The essay deals with the change of aesthetic values that supposedly occurred as a result of the emergence of means of mechanical reproduction. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |