Spectatorship and Social Context

Benjamin, Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, reprinted in Meenaskhi Gig Durham and Douglas Kellner, ed. 5, Media and Culture Studies: Keyworks, Oxford, 2001, pp. 48-70.

Walter Benjamin, a German-Jewish Marxist literary cultural critic and philosopher has been influential in media theory. In his 1936 essay “The Work in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, he wrote a theory of art that is “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art”.(1) He was a forefront postmodern theorist and discussed how mechanical reproduction was revolutionary and liberated the work of art from its dependence on ritual function embedded in tradition.(2) Due to mechanical reproduction, art became based in politics rather than ritualistic function located in religious and magical realms. This happened simultaneously with the rise of socialism. The result was a change in spectatorship, whereby the audience became the author of the work. Prior to this the aura was located in works of art having unique value of authenticity and deprived of any social function of art. The decay of the aura bought the work of art closer to the spectator. This change in perception gave unlimited scope for the masses. It served to give universal equality by the destruction of the aura making art more accessible and politicized. Art in the age of reproduction was able to tackle difficult issues to outrage and mobilise the masses. The cult value receded and the spectator became the critic, however Benjamin stated, ‘an absent minded’ or distracted critic.(3) The distraction was in the reception of the work of art.

The change in spectatorship as a result of reproduction exemplified the politicing function of photography. David Campbell highlights the importance of social context in the reading by the spectator of the pictorial image. (4) Like Benjamin he discusses the power of photography to provoke the spectator through the representation of atrocities in contemporary media. The Vietnam War photograph of Kim Phuc running down the road with almost two-thirds of her body seared by napalm was credited with undermining support for American involvement. (5) This politicising function of photography according to Sontag depends on the condition of reception as to whether there is widespread passivity or outrage. It is the political context, or larger system that the photograph is being placed into that can fail to induce action. (6) The political context portraying irresolvable situations can create public indifference to injustices. This coupled with the absence of photographs through the media of atrocities serve only to perpetuate crisis. Therefore the photograph has the potential to politicize as discussed by Benjamin, to outrage the masses but only if it can get through all the political and social screens and filters discussed by Campbell that serve to diminish its power to provoke. Thus the politicising function of the photograph is dependent on spectatorship and social context.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work _of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Its_Technical_Reproducibility. 21 August 2008.
(2) Benjamin, Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, reprinted in Meenaskhi Gig Durham and Douglas Kellner ed. 5, Media and Culture Studies: Keyworks, Oxford, 2001, pp. 53.
(3) Benjamin, Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, reprinted in Meenaskhi Gig Durham and Douglas Kellner ed. 5, Media and Culture Studies: Keyworks, Oxford, 2001, pp. 63.
(4) Campbell, David, “Horrific Blindness: Images of Death in Contemporary Media”, Journal for Cultural Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, Routledge, 2004. Pp.55.
(5) Campbell, David, “Horrific Blindness: Images of Death in Contemporary Media”, Journal for Cultural Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, Routledge, 2004. Pp.59.
(6) Campbell, David, “Horrific Blindness: Images of Death in Contemporary Media”, Journal for Cultural Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, Routledge, 2004. pp.63.
(7) Campbell, David, “Horrific Blindness: Images of Death in Contemporary Media”, Journal for Cultural Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, Routledge, 2004. pp.70.