response to Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Reproduction"

before reading my response, if you are crazy, try to read Walter Benjamin's writing first:: marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

I wrote this response about 3 years ago during my first art theory class. I still can't believe how I ever finished reading his long paper....and my prof did ask me to re-read because it was evident that I didn't quite understand his theory... well, what do you think?

Journal Entry #4- The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Every time a new form of art, like a new style or a new medium, is introduced to the masses, there is always a period of debate and conflick before it is accepted by the society. Photography and film were thought to be a form of scientifc invention when they were first introduced. It was not until the public became more and more interested in them did the critiques become aware of their existence.

In this week's reading, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," film is the target being debated as to whether is should be considered as a form of art. There are several points in tis article that must be considered. Benjamin, the author, references the whole article to Marxism because photography and film can be easily mass produced. therefore they possess the potential to become commodity. if a work of art becomes a commodity, or is controlled by the economy, it loses its value in the aesthetics, and then is must not be classified as art.

On the other hand, I do not agree with Benjamin's opinion on that camera has the control of actors, and anyone could be an artist through film. With painting, people can only become experts when they know the property of the medium very well. Equally important, I believe that it is also not easy to operate a camera because it is a mechanical device. One can only be good at it when he or she has familiarized him/herself with the device. In addition, film can be propagandistic, hypnotic, but it can also touch our hearts. It all depends on the hands of the camera man. as a result, the aura of the character depicted in the film could not possibly be lost. The mass reproduction to me seems to be a way, which allows more people to enjoy art works created in films and photography. Hence, as long as film industry does not involve economy or politics, it is a medium for art creation.

As for the analysis on slow motion, I feel that the movement of the slow motion may seem fragmented like the author said, but this particular effect could have the audience realize that film also, like painting, take much effort and many steps to complete. I think that slow motion also analyzes the importance of the most ordinary movement that everyone is often unconsciously careless about. It gives the viewers a different feeling on the most common everday motions, and emphasizes the beauty of motion.

In conclusion, I found it a bit difficult imagine myself in the 30's as I was reading this article. Thus it is definitely hard for me not to reject some of the analysis in this week's reading. I think the statement about the quantity of audience sacrifices quality of experience is only true if film were turned into commodity. I believe that there are films, which represents pure visual pleasure still existing today.

************************************************************************************

The reason I thought to post this response was because our leader bun has recently been reading Benjamin's work. I have been trying to re-read this writing again.. but it is really HARD... I will come up with another response when I finish.