Dylan Marks

SSP205, Spring 2005

Commentary on Simulation of Art

Simulation of Art

Benjamin’s article “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” explains how the function of Art has shifted from that of ritualistic purposes to those of political. His claim comes from the fact that when art is reproduced, the aura of the original piece is less, deteriorating its cult value. I believe that for forms of art that were made to be reproduced, such as music, shows, and books, we can still derive a type of cult value from them. For other physical art, I believe a physical reproduction in which one can not distinguish between the two pieces, takes away from the original’s “aura” but other forms of reproduction do not because the experiences derived from the two are different.

Simulation of Reproducible Art

It is useful to look at what would be considered the original in reproducible art. For music it would be a live concert sung by the artist themselves, for TV it would be a live production, and for books the original written text. The originals here could represent cult art in which the audience at a concert idolizes the song being sung on the stage by the artists themselves. However, does one lose out on the ritualistic experience when listening to the same song at home? A bit yes. I would argue that it involves the experience of going to a concert. As part of a collective you “worship” whoever is on stage and give in to idolizing the artist. This experience is difficult to reproduce though “Live Recordings” have been attempted.

The reproduced song does not devalue the original experience in anyway. Instead it stands alone as its own piece of work that can be experienced over and over and gets its value alone, whether it reminds you of another experience or stimulates you with the music. While these reproduced works don’t have the “aura” of the original work their value is in emotional connection to other experiences perhaps related to the original work.

Simulation of Physical Art

The two forms of reproduction of physical art are replicas that are indistinguishable from the original and those that aren’t. If a piece of art is made into two indistinguishable pieces then it seems logical that they would become two of the same piece and their “auras” would be half of what they would as an original. However, if you could distinguish by any means which was the original then that piece should lose nothing. It has with it all its histories and space time components necessary for the aura. Its ritualistic element should also remain in tact as imitators are known and could never take away from the original.

Other forms of distinguishable reproductions from the original are photocopies and pictures. If you were looking at a piece of art that you were in awe of and someone were to take a picture of it and you knew they had, that would take nothing away from the original piece. The only thing the photo provides is proof of existence of the original. So long as one knows that a piece is an original, even though there are reproductions, then there should be no loss in “aura.”

References

Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction.