Assignment 3 - Walter Benjamin

Walter Benjamin-Mechanical Reproduction

Aesthetics class

Kerry Keith Murdock

I believe that Benjamin is stating that the reproduction of art is not art itself but a forgery of the original and a step towards a painful legal procedure in defense of one’s copy to prove it is not.

            When the movie “The Matrix” came out the Wachowski brothers were upset that so many people mimicked their technical process in their own creative works such as commercials, film cameos, and parodies. They were so upset that their very cool special effects became so common place that in the sequels they intentional made their effects so expensive no one could copy them.

            So Benjamin did have a point. What hard-working artist wants their work stolen? And it’s not just in the process, the structure, the color, or the technique. It’s also in the energy, the thought process, the planning, and in the vision. Those cannot be copied and in many ways, the real hard work. So a true forgery targets the end goal without the envisioning, planning, and thought processes involved to bring it to the light of true art for their initial intention is in a completely different direction.

What exactly is forgery? By definition, it is listed as, “…the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive.” In legal terms, in order for something to be made ‘original’ is for there to be a 10% difference between two similar subjects.

So if his argument is simply in regards to the process, what about the performing arts? This would include martial arts, acting, dancing, pantomime, gymnastics, magicians, and even the amazing abilities of circus performers? Here we have some seriously unique talents where the ability to simply reproduce the original masters is the art form itself?

Also, what about the original thought? Isn’t the construction of the project simply a reconstruction of the ‘original,’ meaning of the thought itself. Besides, despite the mastery of the hand, how do we know that the final, presented piece is what the artist originally envisioned in his mind? Therefore, the finished piece could be considered a forgery of his mind’s eye and a flawed, failed one at that.

            Consider also the old phrase that says, “A true artist never really finishes working on a piece.” If that is the case, some of the best works of art have never been made public. They are either still being constructed in the artist’s brain or played upon little by little throughout the ages. In many cases, they are forced to the light without all of the glamour and majesty they were originally intended. For instance, look at George Lucas’ Star Wars, which has received a new facelift every decade since its release. Lucas himself released the concept of THX Digital reconstruction in the attempts to preserve his own piece of work. Since then it has literally saved many films considered classics, from “Gone with the Wind,” to Disney’s classic favorites like, “Lady and the Tramp,” and Oscar winning, “Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs.” Without this process the work would be lost forever and how can we appreciate it then?

            My final argument is in the process itself. What if the art of copying or creating a piece with the process of mechanical reproduction is the art? In the early days of mechanical reproduction some early printers were possessed with the title, “Master Printer.” That didn’t necessary distinguish like, “Mr.,” or “Sir,” would, but it was a way to distinguish that this individual was considered an expert either through proven technique or experience. In modern times it could be considered the equivalent of an educational degree, such as a Masters or Doctorate. So, an individual of that expert caliber could be considered a doctor of printing, a professional expert in the craft of recreating perfectly, regardless of what was being copied – but that he could copy it perfectly over and over and over again.

            It has been said that there are no truly unique creations anymore. If, in the process of trying to prove this theory incorrect, wouldn’t it be best to begin by studying the original masters? Who know that if, in the process of studying how the Masters did it, we are finally able to create something new? After all, we must teeter perilously on the last rung of the ladder in order to climb higher.

            And that’s why I believe his final statement is such; that the practice of reproducing becomes so effectually simple that a novice can be made to look like an expert in such a way that all that remains is the practice to protect one’s original work legally. With today’s digital, high-quality scanners, cameras, and programs we are at that point already.