Walter Benjamin in his article “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” says that new technologies allowing for the “mechanical reproduction” of works of art have in some contexts become art forms in their own right, but at the same time they have changed the way people view art, and taken something essential from it. He suggests that with copying technology, works of art lose their aura.
Aura is a complex aspect of an object having to do with an authenticity that stems from a unique “presence in time and space”, the very existence of an original, the proximity to the thing, and other factors (Benjamin 1936). The destruction of aura occurs in many ways with the mechanical reproduction of art. Benjamin takes an especially harsh criticism of film, saying that reproduction on a large scale “substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence” and this leads to a “shattering of tradition” of which “film is the most powerful agent (1936).”
In following Benjamin’s argument, the four YouTube videos being examined here, (the official music video, the Pussycat Dolls Jai Ho, a dance by the Hagens and a Tamil dance performance to the song), are certainly guilty of many of the aura destroying characteristics he puts forth. First, their very existence as reproductible video is a fault. As they are readily available on the Internet, in an endless number of identical copies, they are guilty of jeopardizing the aura of the original through sheer volume. Arguably, their existence as digital media further jeopardizes the authenticity, because for Benjamin, the presence of an “original” is key to authenticity, and the original of any one of these, especially the amateur copies could have been erased long ago after being moved onto a computer from a camcorder, for example.
Secondly, as we are not in the presence of the performers, but rather are experiencing their performance with the camera mediating it, we lose the performer’s aura, because their presence is synonymous with their aura (Benjamin 1936). Furthermore, the different camera angles that are used in film, and in these videos, as well as the fact that a scene can be cut to include sections from different takes, thus giving a fragmented, distorted view of reality, also destroys aura. In the official Slumdog Millionaire video, even if they had filmed the entire dance sequence in one shot, the fact that it is interspersed with scenes from the film only lets us see a portion of it, therefore showing the viewer only the fragmented reality Benjamin speaks of. Therefore, because of their nature as film, the four videos all violate the aura of the originals.
My understanding of this article was that this loss of aura had to do with the creation of exact copies, which as shown above certainly applies to each of the works individually. However, the presence of multiple imitations, (all the videos save the official music video), which take some aspect of the original but create their own unique version, could further destroy the aura of the original, potentially more than just in having multiple copies of the same work.
For example, the pussycat dolls, create new song lyrics and loosely imitate the setting and costumes of the original music video, however the melody remains the same, and because of their costumes and the train station setting it is clearly in some ways a copy of the original. However, the overall mood and message of the video is entirely different. The Pussycat Dolls bring their own style to the song and the change in lyrics and costumes completely removes any of the purity of finding your one true love, your “destiny,” a line echoed in their song and the movie itself; rather the video and song become more about sex than a special connection and the struggle to find the one you love.
The amateur renditions as well remove some of the artistry that come from the original video. With inexpert dance moves, no costumes, and lesser camera quality somehow they are not as visually appealing, at least for myself. While I do not feel their presence, and the presence of a multitude of others like them detract from the original, I might think of those imitations when thinking of the original, and the connection could in some way taint it. Maybe in thinking of the Pussycat Dolls the love story will seem less profound. Or maybe I will laugh remembering the Hagen’s enthusiastic dancing. Either way, the original no longer exists apart from association with those other versions. Whether this effect is positive or otherwise I cannot say definitively, however, if Benjamin believed a simple copy could detract from the original I cannot imagine he would approve of lesser copies, being widely distributed as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment