Reflection on Walter Benjamin’s Essay

In order to understand fully the content of his work and completely grasp the point of view Walter Benjamin defends in his essay, one has to go back a few decades and look at the historical context he lived in the and socio-political background he came from. Therefore, some biographical information on the man is important. Benjamin was born into a Jewish family in Berlin in 1892. He was known during his life as an essayist, translator, and literary critic. As a sociological and cultural critic Benjamin combined ideas of Jewish mysticism with historical materialsim in a body of work which was an entirely novel contribution to Marxist philosophy and aesthetic theory.

This piece of information enables us to isolate the geographical and historical context this essay was written in so we can pursue a more relevant analysis. The essay was produced in the middle of the mechanical and industrial revolution when concepts like mass-production or mechanical reproduction were starting to make their way. Futhermore, this piece at hand was written in Germany were communism and fascism were starting their dissemination and their everlasting confrontation. In this period of changes where traditions are, being profoundly redifined the question that Benjamin asks is most relevant: “What is the status of the art work?”

Before the industrial age and before mechanical reproduction, a piece of art was a hand made artifact. Each one was unique; each one has its own story, its own fascinating mysteries. The wonders of technology changed all of that work of arts are merely mass produced copies; all identical, all share the same mundane story. Benjamin outputs a contrary analysis of the situation. For him creativity, genius, eternal value, mystery are just outmoded for the better by mechanical reproduction. The one on one relationship with art (only reserved to the elite) is now history: Uniqueness is replaced buy ubiquity. Art is disseminated and accessible to all the layers of society. Benjamin establishes here a keystone in the Marxist aesthetic theory. In this sense, a Chaplin film fits perfectly the Marxists artistic considerations while a piece of artwork from Picasso is merely waste of talent. While one can agree with the idea of art democratization and all its benefits for a society, one can strongly disapprove of his position regarding the fate of creativity and genius. Creativity is this irreproducible quality of a genius that makes the essence and the uniqueness of his work. In this sense, the artwork is just the concrete expression of this unique work, and as such, it is merely a media that the artist uses to share with the rest of the world his genius (in a unique and characteristic way). Therefore, only the artwork is reproducible while the work of the artist i.e. his creativity and genius will eternally stay authentic. No one or nothing will ever paint exactly like Monet, write like Moliere, or compose music like Mozart.