Technology: how it affects the way we create and consume media/art

           Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” is an article addressing the authenticity of a work of art in different types of mediums as technology improves throughout time. The article discusses different ideas that are tied to art and technology—such as the decay of aura—and extensively talks about film, as the essay was written in a time when that medium was being developed.

            The whole idea of the “decay of the aura” is interesting. The essay warns readers that methods of mechanical reproductions (either by the use of printing presses, photography, or film, among others) has the ability to be nothing compared to the actual object that these methods of reproduction are trying to imitate; there is a big difference between looking at a photograph of a piece of art and holding the actual thing in hand. In fact, I’ve had first hand experience in this: I was fortunate enough to hold one of Picasso’s ORIGINAL paintings (a distorted, yet elegant picture of a clown for his grandson). It wasn’t a very “pretty” painting, but the fact that Picasso painted it—I guess that’s what made it “extra special,” in an informal sense. If I were to see that painting in an art book containing many other pieces of art, I would not hold as much value in that experience, since the photograph of those pieces of art are stuck in a single perspective (the perspective of the camera lens), and so it simply feels less real—the aura of the original has been diminished.

            As always, with the progression of time, people’s thoughts on certain things (art, cultural practices, etc.) change as well (Rock music is one example that comes to mind). I really think that people’s perception of something like photography has really changed as well. At the time the essay was written, photography was still something that was new and unwieldy, and so the “art of photography” was not yet mature. Yet, as an amateur photographer 75 or so years after the essay was written, I can say that you can do numerous things with a single snapshot. There are so many things you can take from the real world (lighting, perspective, angles, proportions, color composition, and more), and by using those aspects to your advantage, you can definitely “compose” a picture that shows people something that they would not have noticed normally. In a way, you can use the “limitations” of the camera to reproduce something that cannot be seen with the human eye. In a sense, that can be art as well!

            Electronic technology nowadays is so much better than it was decades ago—and it’s constantly improving! Cameras are able to perform so many more functions, including zooming, macro shots, re-focusing, and different color saturations. Furthermore, the quality of the pictures has definitely improved as well. With a more versatile camera, one is able to use those functions as tools to accentuate certain aspects of a picture, and in effect, create art that was difficult, if not impossible, to create before these technological advancements.

            On the other hand, I think especially nowadays when cameras are so prevalent in society (every cell phone now contains one!) and in an age of digital memory storage, people get into the habit of randomly taking shots of EVERYTHING without taking careful consideration of how they are taking the pictures. In fact, digital technology has pretty much also affected the way people live life—the way people distribute and consume culture. In an age when people’s “lives” and “thoughts” are floating around the internet in the form of digital pictures and digital videos on websites such as facebook and youtube, it is so much easier to distribute these mediums to the public. In a way, this allows ANYONE to become an artist, but at the same time, since individuals have various levels of artistry, there are also a lot more “amateur” works floating around the web. Sure, people can really use this digital distribution—coupled with technological advancements—to really share the beauty seen in the world, but in a way it’s also easy to expose “not-so-great” works to others as well. I also feel that with so many “low quality” works floating around the net, people could either become a little more desensitized to “good” pieces of art or perhaps they will be able to see the “true beauty” when they see a well constructed piece of art. I think this definitely ties into the main point that Benjamin was trying to get across: that these new forms of media are not necessarily bad, but one should carefully consider of how it is used.

            These ideas can be brought over to other forms of media as well, such as film and music. As mentioned in the article, film is a very odd medium to work with, as it allows one to paradoxically see something that they cannot usually see on a normal basis, yet, it feels so detached and soulless since what is captured on screen was actually seen through the eyes of a video camera; film can only progress horizontally in time and capture a single perspective, forcing the viewer to “take the ride” that is stuck on a rail. Like photography, film has developed into a medium that can really convey artistic ideas, and by utilizing so many different aspects of the world (again: angles, lighting, perspectives, proportions, etc.) one can really communicate an artistic idea to an audience. Furthermore, film can now be seen as an art that encompasses much more than simply pointing a video camera at the right things at the right time. In films/movies from Hollywood, so many other things can go into the creation of a whole new universe—costume design, characterizations (by the actors/actresses), set designs, film score, screenwriting, etc. With the unity of all these smaller components, filmmakers are really able to create imaginary worlds that the everyday person can escape to. And with the advent of digital manipulation and special effects, filmmakers can really create something that was unimaginable at the time that the essay was originally written.

            Technology has also certainly changed the way music is created and listened to! As a music technology minor, I know that technology could really be used to alter and capture sounds, which can then be used to create a work of art that shows the listener the beauty of sounds and acoustics. With so many different types of microphones and methods of using the microphones (using multiple microphones, angles, directions, room acoustics, distance from the source, etc.), the possibilities for recording a sample are ENDLESS. Also, with the creation of computer programs such as logic, bias peak, c-sound, and max-msp, one can really create NEW sounds that could only be imagined in the past. And with programs that can harvest and alter overtones (one component that can really alter timbre), one can create an even larger amount of new sounds!

            With the dawn of youtube and other media distribution sites, as well as digital music on ipods with the cheap white earbuds, the way people listen to music has changed. I feel that people don’t quite listen to music as carefully anymore; it is usually something that people would play in the background when they do other work (in fact, I’m listening to Eric Whitacre’s album “Cloudburst” right as I am writing this!). In other words, people listen to music passively. With youtube as well, it is so easy to distribute music, and with so many “videos” (of the song/piece), people can just easily browse through everything with the click of a mouse. As with film and photography, almost anyone can create something that is artistic, yet at the same time, there are also possibilities for “low quality” works.

            All in all, I think this all ties back to the message that Benjamin was trying to get across—that technology could really change the way people create and consume art, and it can both be positive and negative; it all pretty much depends on how utilize technology to consume and create media.