Aura & Hindsight

Considering the points that Walter Benjamin draws upon aura and it’s diminutive nature through reproduction, we must also acknowledge that art cannot exist without some previous inspiration; whether this process occurs through reproduction, compartmentalization, or remediation.

To further understand the importance of aura, one must take a closer look at Benjamin’s text which addresses the loss of aura that occurs through art thanks to reproduction. In his essay he states that” even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element; its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be“ (1235). Therefore, when you recreate a piece of art again and again, every other time will have a lesser significance. To an extent I can see where the argument is coming from. 

To begin, take Andy Warhol for example. One of the greatest American artists, if not the greatest American artist to have ever existed. His entire approach to art, and the reasoning for why he became so coveted and popular in the first place was due to his introduction of pop art. Otherwise known as cartoon-like reproductions of objects, sometimes following a different color scheme. Think about the Campbell’s soup cans for example, or the paintings of Marilyn Monroe and other celebrities. If not for reproduction being a key player in the popularization of Andy Warhol’s art, he might not be the key figure that we think of today. On one end of the spectrum he was up and coming with his “Factory” where art and film was created, and this was unique, but on the other end, during the 1970s Warhol began commercializing on his work, and therefore engaging in the conscious, vast reproduction of his art. To any other artist, this could be seen as the death of all art, but what Warhol was doing in the mid to late 1970s was actually innovative because he was taking full advantage of the trend which his artworks began.  

Next, when Benjamin state’s that “this unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of existence,” I see this as a criticism of art which has been reproduced over a few decades or even a few years (1235). Again, going back to my example about Andy Warhol, this is an artist who basically concentrated his entire career on pop art, and art which included repetition, and reproduction within itself. I think that the position which Warhol found himself in right before the 1980s was a very comfortable one, in which he had total creative and reproductive control of his art, and this is something that would definitely not sit well with Walter Benjamin and his argument concerning the loss of aura. 

Within his article, Benjamin briefly touches upon the subject of replicas. “Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain,” (1233). To some extent he is definitely talking about all of the reasons as to why people would even choose to reproduce their work in the first place, whether it is done by them, or someone they have hired, or another entity. Reproduction is no new daunting task. It has been around since the creation of art. Some forms of art are meant to be reproduced in order to reassure their staying power. Think of graffiti for example. Different graffiti artists belong to different circles, usually they might have some sort of symbol or signature which they attribute to their crew. One could argue that this is art which must be reproduced every single time a new piece is painted, in order to make sure that other people know who is responsible for a particular piece of art or mural or section. 

Additionally, when students learn how to perfect their craft within their particular artistic field, much of the time they must learn through practice, which therefore includes repetition. I don’t think that we can just get rid of the act of replication and reproduction because they are so crucial to the creation and the emphasis of art. There is a section within Favro's article which states [that] "at the same time, the path of the procession exhorted all observers to "look behind" to the future." What I got out of this is that all people must look to the past in order to understand what is happening in our future. This feeling, and this notion also applies to art. Art goes through stages and is cyclical, and is ephemeral to an utmost extent. So to say that a work of art loses it's aura through reproduction and possible re-appropriation, and through remixing, is a bit skewed and antiquated. To an extent, there is not actually any art that is completely original. When you think about it, art draws its influences from preexisting means, subjects, and objects.

To enumerate, my aim for this discussion is to shy away from the fact that aura is this ephemeral concept that we should romanticize just because Walter Benjamin said so. Likewise, art that is reproduced, or remixed, or remediated should not be demonized just because it is drawing influences or ideas from a work that’s been previously created, or even if it is an exact replica. In my opinion, the notion or idea of a work of art, whether it is a portrait, picture, or text, is not diminished through the simple act of reproduction. Many, many examples of popular art draw together concepts based on the premise of replication and reproduction, and sometimes are even commissioned from artists with the sole purpose of mass distribution. Overall, the aura of an artwork should not be thought of as diminished just because it is reproduced, remediated, or even remixed. Art will forever draw its influences from the past, in order to keep reinventing itself., even if it means replicating some, here and there.