Reproductivity of Art

How does the ability to mechanically reproduce a medium change the idea what constitutes art is a crucial issue in art making these days.  When talking about new forms of art creation or new features of art regime, how does reproducibility create a system of relations that differs from that of a one-of-a-kind object must be concerned.  

In principle, I agree with Benjamin’s argument that “a work of art has always been reproducible”. From script to print, graphics to lithography, and finally to the technique of photography and film, mechanical reproduction of a work of art can always represent something new in human history. The improvements in mechanical reproducibility of artwork, in Benjamin’s mind, may damage the “aura” of a work of art; however in my opinion, the increasing reproducibility sometimes brings more possibilities to human’s art practice.

In this essay, Benjamin established his theory of aura, which means the “here and now” of a work of art. Aura is always tied with unique historical circumstances. However, massive reproduction brings human’s concerns about the authenticity of a work of art.  Since the most perfect reproduction of an art piece is lacking one important element: “its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be”. In other words, it lacks its aura. On the other hand, aura is alive and extremely changeable. The relationship between the two values of a work of art: its cult value and exhibition value will change in different auras. For instance, nowadays the exhibition value of an artwork becomes a creation with entirely new functions. Some photography artworks’ exhibition value begins to displace their cult value all along the line. That’s no wonder because contemporary masses always want to bring things “closer” and overcome the uniqueness of everything, even art, in the belief of “universal equality”. By accepting the mechanical reproduction, people start to “pry an object from its shall, to destroy its aura”.

I’m not sure if I agree with Benjamin on this point. Because aura is changeable, and may be the massive mechanical reproducibility is part of the aura of our time. Apparently the mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art. And that is how we embrace new formats of fine art practice. Relational art is a good example. With the mechanical reproducibility, everything can be art today. On the other hand, the mechanical reproduction released the work of art from its dependence on its ritual basis. Relational aesthetics projects just “break with the traditional physical and social space of the art gallery and the sequestered artist studio or atelier”. Relational aesthetics takes as its subject the entirety of life as it is lived, or the dynamic social environment, rather than attempting mimetic representation of object removed from daily life; or say the exhibition value exceeds the cult value of a work of art in this new possibility brought by mechanical reproduction.