ix Benjamin

The further back we deconstruct the theoretical fabrications of postmodernism in this class, the more evident it is becoming to me how much the internet, with its nigh limitless abilities at new interpretations of art in form and function, really begins to undermine certain specific arguments posed by many of the theorists we have read to date. Benjamin is no exception. Unlike the “aura” in art he touts, some of Benjamin’s theories are subject to the deprecatory effects that come with new technologies.

—this was actually what I initially thought—. I wrote this paragraph with much glee and hubris thinking I had been visited by the white dove of inspiration, not unlike the Renaissance imagery of Jesus after having been baptized by John, complete with heavenly hallelujah chorus, only to, upon deeper inspection and futile attempts at backing my pompous claim, come to the sad realization that I must have been smoking crack.

Deeper delving into what Benjamin was saying not only changed my perspective but also made me realize how utterly prescient he truly was. For example, Benjamin talks about how “[w]orks of art are received and valued on different planes” which he considers to be “polar” opposites: cult value and exhibition value (23). He posits that due to “different methods of technical reproduction” (i.e. new technological advances) not only has the quantity of the works of art that are fit to be exhibited increased but its worth and social, one might even add political, value has changed. Note #11 then goes on to expound on what Benjamin is predicting here; Reification:

“…what happens here with the work of art will change it fundamentally and erase its past to such an extent that should the old concept be taken up again…it will no longer stir any memory of the thing it once designated” (37).

Benjamin could also have been anticipating reality TV, while stating it in the familiar terms of the 1930’s, when he said the “newsreels offer[ed] everyone the opportunity to rise from passer-by to movie extra,” though the movie extra would have to be upgraded to starring roles. When he comments, “today there is hardly a gainfully employed [person] who could not, in principle, find an opportunity to publish somewhere or other comments on his work, grievances, documentary reports, or that sort of thing… the distinction between author and public…[loses] its basic character” I can’t help but enjoy the irony that in the latter he’s talking about Wikipedia and in the former he’s talking about this very act of blogging.