Modern Vision: Is Art ----- Rapid?

In his 1935 essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" Walter Benjamin made the statement, “To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the authentic” print makes no sense.” My initial reading of this comment was to interpret this as a form of animosity toward a not fully understood mechanical process, medium and artistic pursuit.  This was only a small, albeit heavily weighted, statement within the greater context of his essay.


Upon further investigation I have come to realise that truth and merit do exist in his cultural commentary.  Benjamin also states, "For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual" and "With the emancipation of the various art practices from ritual go increasing opportunities for the exhibition of their products."  His opinion was that art was borne from ritual, that it was inextricably tied to religous doctrine. The underlying meaning in this comment is that the oligarchy was traditionally in near complete control of the societal propagation of art. The advent of emergent artistic technologies go very far in undermining this unbalance of authority. To allow art to exist purely for 'being art'.


Still in question is the concept 'authenticity' when considering a mechanically produced work of art. His writings continue to state that as the 'practice of ritual' (or cult value) of art is lost, a potential exists for it to be displaced by what he refers to as the 'exhibition value', also known as the 'practice of politics'. At its most extreme this translates into art being produced for monetary gain and increased self-worth.


Authenticity does have a welcome place in our modern, digital world. My view is that art is a byproduct of the personality of its creator. This is unrelated to medium, production (or reproduction) methods. To be frank, it doesn't need to be good --- or even in good taste. To embrace the concept of 'authentic' art is to simply acknowledge that something has been touched by the human mind. A machine utilised poorly will invariably result in an equally poor product. Is this the fault of the machine, or the human creator of the work? Who would the credit go to if a mechanically produced work was jaw droppingly  gorgeous? The machine you say?