The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction | Summary - I - Walter Benjamin - “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”

This essay, divided into 15 sections plus a preface and an epilogue, was originally published in 1936.

Benjamin precedes the preface with an epigraph, or introductory quotation, from the French modernist poet and man of letters Paul Valéry, who anticipates "profound changes" and "great innovations" in the fine arts. Historically, as Benjamin points out, great changes have required substantial spans of time. As a case in point, he remarks that Karl Marx's critique and indictment of the capitalist system occurred very early in the development of capitalism.

In Section 1 Benjamin asserts that works of art have always been reproducible in principle. The ancient Greeks, for example, could produce facsimiles of bronzes, terra cottas, and coins with their technologies of founding and stamping. However, with the advent of woodcut graphic art, followed by lithography, photography, and film, the reproduction of works of art proceeded at an ever-accelerating pace. Mechanical reproduction of an artwork was a momentous innovation. In Section 2 Benjamin declares that in older epochs, an original work of art preserved its authority vis à vis its manual reproduction, but not with respect to its mechanical reproduction. In the current era the "aura" of the work of art has withered. The most powerful factor or agent in this changed equation is film.

In Section 3 Benjamin invokes time, which causes changes in the mode of human sense perception. He declares in Section 4 that an artwork's "uniqueness ... is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition." As a concrete example, he mentions a statue of the ancient goddess Venus; such an artwork was accorded veneration in antiquity but was regarded "as an ominous idol" during the Middle Ages. This example shows the close connection between a work of art's aura and its ritual. Mechanical reproduction has separated these two elements for the first time in history. Benjamin points out that numerous prints may be made from a single photographic negative, and "to ask for the 'authentic' print makes no sense." In Section 5 Benjamin distinguishes between the "cult value" and the "exhibition value" of a work of art.

Benjamin declares in Section 6 that in photography, cult value has begun to yield to exhibition value. In early photography the portrait was the focus of artistic effort. Benjamin mentions the work of the French photographer Eugène Atget, whose evocative scenes of deserted Parisian streets earned him fame. Benjamin adds that captions, for the first time, have become obligatory in the current era of photography. In Section 7 the author briefly discusses the 19th-century debate over the artistic value of painting versus that of photography. Benjamin also begins a thorough discussion of film. Section 8 offers a provocative series of contrasts between the artistic performances of a stage actor and a screen actor.

In Section 9 Benjamin points out that in film, the camera is a substitute for the public. Rather than representing someone else, as in staged drama, the film actor represents himself to the camera. There is, too, the altered continuity in film. The screen actor's creation is not all of a piece; rather, it is the sum of many separate performances. In Section 10 Benjamin comments on "the feeling of strangeness" that the screen actor experiences in front of the camera. He also points out that with the growth of the press, the traditional ratio of authors to the public has begun to change. Benjamin notes that "the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character."

In Section 11 Benjamin delves into the particulars of shooting a sound film, describing the process as an unimaginable spectacle in any epoch before his own. He compares the cameraperson to a painter, drawing the analogy of a surgeon versus a magician, respectively. Benjamin begins Section 12 by asserting that mechanically reproducing art alters the public's reaction to it. He contrasts a Picasso painting with a Charlie Chaplin movie. In film, the tendency is to enjoy the conventional and avoid the truly new. Painting, declares Benjamin, cannot "present an object for simultaneous collective experience" as architecture has managed to do, or epic poetry in past eras, or film today.

In Section 13 Benjamin considers similarities between film and psychoanalysis. Both processes afford a more detailed, probing analysis of human nature and behavior, and both can reveal hidden details of familiar things. According to Benjamin, film "extends our comprehension of the necessities which rule our lives." In film, the close-up expands space, while slow motion extends movement. Benjamin summarizes as follows: "The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses."

In Section 14 Benjamin considers the role that artworks play in creating future demands of audiences. In this context he briefly discusses Dadaism, the modernist art movement that ridiculed absurdity in the modern world. Finally, in Section 15 Benjamin briefly comments on various art forms within the context of the polar opposites of concentration and distraction.

In the epilogue Benjamin discusses the growth of the masses and the efforts of Fascists to organize them. He quotes artist Filippo Marinetti (1876–1944), a member of the futurist movement, which worshipped the machine and emphasized speed and technology. Marinetti declared in an aggressive manifesto that "war is beautiful." Benjamin observes that with the fight-ready nature of futurism and Fascism, society is turning mankind into an object of contemplation for itself.