Benjamin states that "the greater the decrease in social significance
of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and the enjoyment
by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed, and the truly new is
criticized with aversion"(45). This past weekend I had to go home due to a family emergency. My mom is a strong Catholic and often turns to her religion in times of need. She suggested that we go downtown D.C and visit the Franciscan Monastery, a place noted as one of Washington's "hidden gems". When we arrived I was taken aback by the heading on the properties entrance. It read: "Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land. Holy Land? I questioned my familiarity with religious places and geography in general. I was almost certain that the Holy Land meant the Land of Israel. To my surprise I was right. The Franciscan Monastery's claim to fame was its replicas of Holy Land shrines, Lourdes Grotto and catacombs.
We took a tour and our guide explained that the replicas were faultless with exact measurements and materials to create the paintings, carvings, and religious icons at the "original Holy Land." I remember looking around me and seeing the strangers that took the tour with us taking pictures, mesmerized by the replicas. Half of our tour traveled all the way from the Philippines to visit the Monastery. It seemed almost as if they had been convincing themselves that they were in Israel.
I won't deny the beauty of the Franciscan Monastery. Yet I do have a hard time with the idea of paying to see something that is the "fake" version of something...Benjamin explains that the problem is that the original isn't what it used to be. Yes, if I had the opportunity I would love to go and see the true Holy Land itself, however I've seen everything I need to see already. I'm sure I would have a different spiritual experience rather than the American embroiled political economy experience.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post. As a fellow Catholic, I could relate to the your feelings of authenticity as they pertain to the Franciscan Monastery. I find that no matter what church I go to, there is inevitably an attempt to recreate the past, and provide a feeling of “authenticity.” When I refer to authenticity I am referring to Rome, Israel, and the other holy lands of antiquity. Inevitably, these places fall short of creating an authentic aura. The fact that they are mere replicas makes it impossible for them to have the same history, feelings, and authenticity of religious places of the holy land. That isn’t to say that there isn’t spiritual value or enjoyment from visiting these places. I myself find churches to be very spiritual and calming to my mind. Although these replicas help to produce a feeling of holiness, they don’t hold the same weight as a church in the Vatican, or a temple in Jerusalem.
ReplyDeleteYour quote from Benjamin perfectly highlights the effect conventional work has on our minds. We take less time to criticize what is conventional while blasting anything that is new. Had the Monastery been built in another style aside from the conventional, people would be floored. They would ask where the stained glass was, where the paintings and stenciled art that lined the ceiling had gone, or even why the alter wasn’t lined with ornate candles and decoration. Stuck in our ways we seem to be steered to what is familiar and on guard to protect it from new ideas.
Another aspect of your paper that resonates with Benjamin is the idea of mass reproduction, and its effect on the aura. You stated that it was hard for you to be “mesmerized” by replicas within the monastery let alone pay to see them. IN a world struck by mass reproduction I agree that there is a loss of aura. Going to this Franciscan Monetary, while no doubt a religious experience, cannot recreate the auto of visiting the true Holy Land.