Brady DeHoust -- Benjamin, Duplication, and Aesthetic Value

This post will take a look at John Durham Peters’ relation of Walter Benjamin’s thought experiment in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” The thought experiment is this: what if we had a machine that could duplicate the Mona Lisa down to the very molecule, “the canvas, the paint, and the frame, including the effects of aging and the exposure to chemicals, heat and humidity,” that is, to make an utterly indistinguishable copy. The question is whether or not they could be valued differently and why. Here is Benjamin’s answer in Peters’ words:

“Still the two works would not be at all the same thing. One would invite inquiries about the fetching smile, the other about the amazing technique. One would ask us to follow a trail of contagious magic across the distance of time back to Leonardo’s time, the other would leave us awed by the technological prowess of our own. The copy would be a spectacle of ingenuity, not a moving or perplexing work of art. It would be a simulation, not an expression. … One painting would be fit for the Louvre, the other for Disneyland. … Culture is clearly more than matter in motion… Artworks are not only texts, that is, reproducible fields of signifiers; their origin, afterlife, and material shape all matter profoundly.” (Speaking into the Air, pp. 238-239, emphasis added.)

This is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the idea of magic comes out, much like it does in van der Leeuw, in this case appearing to refer to a certain X-factor possessed by real art. The contrast of the Louvre and Disneyland is also topical, fitting in with the idea of aesthetic sojourning versus aesthetic tourism we also discussed earlier this semester. Most profoundly, the last sentence (in italics) highlights the importance of context for true art, which came up very recently and received mention in my last post. This idea of context, history, time, space, presence, particularity, and authenticity spells out phenomenology white comprehensively. Add Benjamin to the list of people who seem to find “magic” in the particular, present, and authentic, in the midst of context.

I only hope that if this technology ever develops that we don’t accidentally switch the labels on the two Mona Lisa’s. Then where would we be? Without knowing the history and context of a physical artifact, value becomes quite arbitrary, it would seem. Hence the successful usage of copies in art museums. It is the mythos behind the artifact that lends it its value. Construct the right narrative around a cheap copy, and suddenly that is the valued work. Hence the importance of careful records and means of differentiating authentic from duplicate.

I suppose for the lay person it hardly matters. What percentage of the world population could tell the real Mona Lisa from a carefully crafted forgery? 0.01%? 0.001%? Fewer? So now we’re back to that same old question. What makes art valuable? What makes it fine? Context, apparently. But context is a narrative, and can be generated. So then someone must be able to tell the difference. But then, most people can’t do that, and must rely on someone’s word, if they care at all. Ignorance or uncertainty regarding context then seems to have an equalizing force. Does it elevate the forgery to the level of an original? Or cheapen the original to the level of a copy? Food for thought.