Performing the Past, Spring 2001, Lecture 7 1 Lumière, Méliès, Benjamin move from 50-sec, 17m shots of Lumières to magical narratives of Méliès Méliès introduces edits both share an interest in the products of science & industry trains, Lyons street scenes, Verne-like rocket to moon how does perception of realistic or fantastic in film differ from theatre? example of leaf blowing, does shock of magic differ? How is one to assess the technical & social novelty of film? Does the novelty alone of new technologies give them a positive quality of social transformation? Obviously not. And do new techniques imply any “aesthetic imperatives”? Maybe, maybe not. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1936) written under influence of rise of Fascism, Benjamin & Brecht reception and interpretation of art happens in social context producer/author not sole source of meaning

Performing the Past, Spring 2001, Lecture 7 2 Attempt to read changes in artistic production in a Marxian vein this materialist emphasis leads to some interesting theses about the relationship between modes of production and modes of audience reception The programmatic nature of Marxian perspective also leads to some tendentious arguments, to make film & photography politically necessary tools, that film is somehow necessarily a more progressive blend of art & science Aura = testimonial history of object, authenticity Original, cultic aura of work “withers in... mechanical reproduction” (221) 1) reproduced object of perception 2) distances & masses reached, not immediate relationship 3) object separated from domain of tradition, original social context

Performing the Past, Spring 2001, Lecture 7 3 Are we losing history w/ reproducibility (221) Is there a “sense of the universal equality of things” (223) Does the actor of film become more like a prop? (23) at the same time becomes more a kind of aura as celebrity? Benjamin tries to avoid pitting popular art against elite art, high culture vs. mass culture does so in part by overstating progressive role of film to “coincide the critical and receptive attitudes of the public” (234)

Performing the Past, Spring 2001, Lecture 7 4 Warhol, Birth of Venus after Botticelli Warhol, 4 Marilyns Reversal Series Warhol, 100 Cans Warhol, Mao

Performing the Past, Spring 2001, Lecture 7 5 I. History of repro II.fall of aura after mech repro III. Perception goes w/ social conditions Mass culture equality of perception of things, statistical relation to world IV.How much was uniqueness a part of auratic, cultic appreciation of object previously? Art becoming designed for reproducibility Art from Ritual into politics as result of reproducibility? V. Cult value vs. exhibition value ritual use value vs. commercial exchange value what is “art”? Vi. Melancholy of images, photographs of dead trying to describe phenomenology of new modes of production Atget’s photographs, a free-floating contemplation? but film reduces this meditativeness, directs to use value? VII Arguing for “popular” forms like film as art; Still deeply embedded in a German and European context of high art vs. mass art Benj. says no need to read film as cultic in order to redeem it film not to be fantastical or realistic necessarily

Performing the Past, Spring 2001, Lecture 7 6 VIII.Wants to propose audience reception of film as “testing” Does identification w/ a camera make identification less emotional, more critical? Influence of Brecht ix. Film actor more a function of celebrity than stage character? what happens to film actor’s aura? (presence/absence) “distinction between author & producer is about to lose it basic character” (232) x. Masses becoming experts, producers? xi. Film as penetrating, composed of parts xii. W/ screen, “critical and receptive attitudes of the public coincide” (234) but do they? does filmic response always equal mass response? is the difference in audience reaction to surrealism & film that of medium xiii. Freud & film wants science & art brought together unconscious optics of film xiv. Usefulness of uselessness in art Dadaist destruction of aura not contemplation or distraction, but shock into action épater la bourgeoisie does shifting, shocking editing produce analytic response, or a new kind of perceptual inertia? (238)

Performing the Past, Spring 2001, Lecture 7 7 Epilogue Fascism takes control of film medium & suppresses its critical function discrepancy between state and uses of technology how about in terms of food production Virilio:an orbital relationship to politics today?

Performing the Past, Spring 2001, Lecture 7 8 John Heartfield, Adolf the Superman: Swallows Gold and Spouts Junk