My head (and my soul) hurts

            In an era where everything can be so easily replicated or reproduced, one begins to wonder how authentic something actually is. I remember in class we reviewed the concept of intertextuality and how you cannot read a text without referring back to what you have absorbed from other texts. This not only applies to how we read texts but also to how we create them. Thus, when creating something, whatever it may be, since we are referring to other texts and perhaps emulating them in our work, is it truly authentic? Maybe a certain component of the work may be authentic in its true definition but the other parts of it are not since they have been reproduced. Indeed, Walter Benjamin in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” claims that a work of art loses its authenticity because there is not the presence of the original time and space. Consequently the “aura” of whatever is being presented is eradicated and when I think of aura, I think of the energy or the “vibes” (as Millenials like to say) of that being or object.

            Benjamin’s explanation of the difference between “cult value” and “exhibition value” also stood out to me. The cult value refers to the notion that art is magical and should be hidden or only presented to a select few. Meanwhile, exhibition value suggests that the “emancipation of the various art practices” allows it to be displayed for the masses, which often leads to commodification. He goes on to state that today “the work of art becomes a creation with entirely new functions, among which the one we are conscious of, the artistic function, later may be recognized as incidental” (41). I interpreted that this meant artistic creation will still be present in the work but will not necessarily be the purpose of it. So what is the purpose?

            In relation to cult and exhibition value, Benjamin proposes that, “mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art.” This can be demonstrated in the difference between paintings and film, in which the art of painting is more esoteric while film is enjoyed by the masses. You will see a few people at your local museum, but half the town at the opening night of “The Avengers”. So this brings Benjamin to conclude that a reproduced form of art like film is used as a form of distraction for the masses. He states, “the masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator” (47). Those who seek distraction absorb works of art while those who concentrate on art are absorbed by it. Is this readerly vs. writerly? Also, is it always a bad thing that art can be a distraction? Are there not pure forms of art that are uplifting and move people in positive ways? Must we always create art to only shed light on the negative aspects of society? 

            As for final thoughts, the epilogue of the essay was disconcerting in which he suggests that the masses are enjoying their own distraction. He writes “Its self alienation [mankind] has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order.” Are humans enjoying their own annihilation? Yikes...