Opiate, indeed

Walter Benjamin defines art as a process that leaves behind an artifact (p.  2).  He laments society’s increasing technological abilities to reproduce artifacts, saying that such reproduction “substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence” (p. 3) and “lead[s] to a tremendous shattering of tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary crisis and renewal of mankind” (p. 4).  

He feels that all works of art are based either on ritual or politics (p. 5), a definition that I question.  This mindset that all art is for public consumption bothers me, because it takes art completely out of the private realm and subjects it to public scrutiny.  In my experience, art is a private thing that the public rarely gets to see.  As I write this, I can see two large paintings in my bedroom that were painted by my mother and sister respectively.  One is a depiction of the Wellsville mountains, and it is painted on an old farm door.  I love this painting because of its unusual canvas.  Usually the canvas goes unnoticed in a painting; like any infrastructure, it is primarily noticed only when there is a problem.  In that way, the painting is a good metaphor for an anomalous superstructure.

This artifact arose out of my sister’s love of the subject, the Wellsville mountains.  It is not a cult object, as it has no ritualistic origin.  Neither is it a political object, because it is not meant for anyone but her and me to see.  She was not trying to influence anyone or make any kind of political statement; rather, she was just trying to reflect the beauty of her surroundings.

The Wellsville painting highlights the major flaw that I see in the writings of the Frankfurt school: when a philosophy is phrased in absolute terms, a single exception refutes the entire argument.  It’s fine to see the world through a Marxist lens, but not all people or actions will adhere to a single model. 

I also question the idea that reproduction of a work lessens the value of the work itself.  As I see it, there are two kinds of reproduction made possible by technology: copies of the actual artifact and new versions of it.  When prints are made of a Picasso painting, members of the Frankfurt school feel that the value of the original artifact decreases because the proletariat suddenly has access to it.  The artifact has become a tool to increase the “unity of the masses” (Horkheimer & Adorno, p. 121).  In contrast, I think that these prints are merely new versions of the original work.  The original painting is still the only copy, and it can be seen only by those who have physical access to it.

Technology does allow us to make copies of an artifact, and this process does lead to the societal unity that Horkheimer and Adorno feared.  Film is an example, as is any electronic media.  When I write a technical document, there is an artifact only when I print a copy.  I can print many copies and hand them to the proletariat minions around me, and each person has an original version of that document.  Is this a problem?  Perhaps, if my influence reaches enough people to cause an ideological shift. 

I think that the Frankfurt school would be terrified at the ease of distribution today.  I also think that they would see that extreme ease of access leads to a watering-down of the impact any single work has.  There are simply too many artifacts being produced for any individual piece of art to cause a change.  Eventually, this will be a good thing for the masses.