Marcel Duchamp Prefigure Walter Benjamin's Thesis - Essay Example

?In what ways did the work of Marcel Duchamp prefigure Walter Benjamin's thesis in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936)? Introduction Finding a single definition to what art is may be a very difficult task to accomplish. However, there could be a generalized understanding of the fact that art deals with how human try to exhibit their creative skill and imagination1. This is usually done in a visible and tangible and format and the visual representation of such form of human skill and imagination is what art is all about. Art is unique and special in several ways. If for nothing at all, it could be appreciated that it is not all people who possess artistic characteristics and talent and those the few who do are highly praised and revered. It is however important to point out that whether a person is an artist or not, there is a little of art in every person. If for nothing at all, everyone has an appreciation for a good work of art and this makes all people artistic. It is against this backdrop that the development of art has remained a very crucial and important point for discussion for many years. Art has evolved since it was first discovered and the reason behind all these forms of evolutions is to ensure that the production of works of art suit the aesthetic needs of the people to whom it is presented. A key point in global art history in terms of evolutionary art is the early 20th century when Benjamin Walter hypothesized and further came out with an essay on art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In this paper, the ways in which the work of Marcel Duchamp prefigures Walter Benjamin’s thesis in his essay shall be analyzed. Introduction to the works of Marcel Duchamp Marcel Duchamp has been a major contributing icon to the work of art, especially in the 20th century. The 1887 French born had the opportunity of having his first exhibition in 1908 in what was termed Salon d’Automne through the influence of his brother2. But since then, Duchamp took a lot of control over what he could do as an artistic personality. It is not for nothing that Perloff (2005) notes that Duchamp’s readymades now commands sky-high prices, with people applying for permission to reproduce some of his related images in a scholarly book on modernism paying as much as $200 apiece. This means that Duchamp has continued to remain a very influential figure in art since the 1990s and continues to dominate modern artistic theories. As far as the mechanical reproduction is concerned, a number of great pieces of art works could be attributed to Duchamp, most of which shall be discussed into detail in later sections of the paper. However, it is worth mentioning that the influence of Duchamp on art through the challenging commands of conventional thoughts he had over artistic processes gave so much scheme to what was yet to be born essay of Benjamin Walter3. Though it is said that Duchamp did not succeed in producing as many works of art as some of his predecessors and those that came after him, the few he did and some of his subversive actions predicted that he was a revolutionist of art who wanted the old aura to be replaced with a new one, which Walter later came to champion as a thesis in his essay. Overview of Walter Benjamin’s Thesis The major thesis of Walter Benjamin’s essay touches on the conceptualization that the form of technical reproduction of works of art that takes place today are not a modern phenomenon but that modernity has played a contributing factor in ensuring and enhancing much accuracy in the course of mass production4. Throughout the essay, this thesis is elaborate to more or less praise the role of modern artistic discoveries into making what used to be even better. The essay therefore analyses various for m of the development of mechanical visual reproduction including photography, stamping and engraving5. In each of these artistic practices, which in the opinion of Walter are not new but an exhibition of mechanical reproduction that has been with us for long, a new line of modern perfection and accuracy is detected as compared to previous forms mechanical reproduction which took forms like inscription of designs on stones. The place of newness that Walter saw in mechanical reproduction was described with the words; “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art”6. This means that in his argument and reasoning, Walter saw a bigger place for art and for that matter mechanical reproduction as not just being important for the sake of aesthetic admiration but also for controlling the larger socio-political world around us. But in all of this, critics have continued to ask whether Walter’s thesis on mechanical reproduction was anything new and something that was totally unheard of especially as it is believed that a person like Duchamp had already given an indication of mechanical reproduction through his works and actions. The concept of Mechanical reproduction There are two major concepts of art that defines the concept of mechanical reproduction as outlined in Walter’s essay. The first has to do with the concept of mechanics and the other has to do with reproduction. By mechanics, reference is being made to the use of manual equipment and strength in the creation of any work. Reproduction on the other hand refers to the creation of a work that is thought to have existed before. Mechanical reproduction would therefore be said to be the re-creation of works of art through the use of manual equipment, knowledge and strength7. In the opinion of Walter, mechanical reproduction was a practice that deserved commendation because it had come to make the work of artists quite easier. This was therefore a way of saying that artists who had worked before the acknowledged age of mechanical reproduction were actually doing reproduction but in a different form or through a different means. Walter is indeed, highly critical of the fact that most artists who came earlier refused to admit the fact that they were merely reproducing and not creating new ideas. But Walter did not criticize them entirely or at least in vivid expression. Later, there were some artists who were influenced by Walter’s idea of mechanical reproduction, including John Berger. In his case, Berger however saw everything wrong with mechanical reproduction as he somewhat lamented the destruction of the authority of art through reproduction8. He went on to further describe mechanical reproduction as something that make art valueless, free and ubiquitous9. Ways in which Duchamp may have prefigured Walter’s Thesis As indicated earlier, there are critiques of Walter Benjamin who have actually said that much of the view and idea of mechanical reproduction existed in different ways and forms before he publically outlined it in his essay. One of such names that come up easily is that of Marcel Duchamp who through action and artwork exhibited glimpses of mechanical reproduction in his time. Two of the works of Duchamp in which mechanical reproduction could be said to be involved are discussed as follow. Production of L.H.O.O.Q. Just as in the thesis of Walter’s mechanical reproduction, Duchamp, will in 1919 ahead of the essay Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936) take an existing work of art and reproduce it in a slightly altered fashion. In the case of L.H.O.O.Q. Duchamp picked up on Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa and modified or better still reproduced it by drawing up a moustache and beard by the use of a pencil. By Walter’s definition or explanation of mechanical reproduction, the mechanical aspect of L.H.O.O.Q. will be seen in the use of a pencil rather than complex machinery in the actual task of revamping the work into a new form. The reproduction also comes in with the modification of the Mona Lisa in such a way that what was produced was not exactly what was produced earlier by Leonardo da Vinci. In fact, there is much justification in the fact that Duchamp through his work gave a prefigure of Walter Benjamin’s thesis as Duchamp did not just reproduce existing works manually but went ahead to actually give those line works a generalized label or name known as readymades. By calling the works readymades, Duchamp was merely predicting the possibility of taking up an existing work and refining it into a new form. Source: Sjaakjansen (2012) Production of Fountain Having created the generalized idea of readymades, Duchamp went ahead to reproduce some more existing works of art that confirms his prediction of the thesis of Walter Benjamin. Another example is seen in the making of Fountain. It is worth giving background to Duchamp’s idea of readymades as the need to actually pick up an object or item that is not necessarily related to art and transforming it into a work of art. Most critics have actually said therefore that Fountain was a deviation from the norm because in deviation, there was actually the use of an existing work of art, which had so much meaning in its original format as a piece of work that communicated the ideas and imagery of an artist. The controversy has however been on whether the porcelain urinal, which was recreated by Duchamp, was made for art purposes or for use as a ceramic toilet product. But whatever the case is, there is a clear in the 1917 presentation of Fountain to the Society of Independent Artists, Duchamp presented a work that had been recreated, much in the line of Walter’s thesis on mechanical reproduction. Once Duchamp took an existing porcelain urinal, he wrote the inscription “. Mutt 1917” on it and labeled it Fountain. There are reports also that he had changed the orientation of the work into 90 degrees, confirming that Duchamp actually had some reproduction to do on the original work. How Mechanical Reproduction separates art from its basis In the opinion of Walter (1936), the basis of art is its originality, which manifests its self in two major ways namely tradition and authenticity. What this means is that once a work of art is produced, the work must be able to depict originality in the way and manner it carries a wave of tradition and in the way it sends out an authentic message of creativity and style, which has not been seen or felt before10. Sadly though, regardless of the advantages and merits of mechanical reproduction, which may be put a step ahead of technical reproduction, mechanical reproduction is seen to be lacking in this sense of carrying an original aura, thereby defeating the basis of art. That is, mechanical reproduction separates art from its basis because there is no originality in mechanical reproduction11. The worse forms of examples could be cited in cases whereby artists merely undertake alterations to existing works without seeking the need to totally disassemble the work and reproduce a new one. In line with the thesis of Walter (1936), the admonition would be that artist must insist on a new form of mechanical reproduction whereby there is the need to originate new and authentic ideas that can be referred to as the traditions of the reproduced works they undertake. By this means, a reproduced work of art should be an improved and highly amended version of the original work with a theme and tradition of its own. The aura of modernity Perloff (2005), put up a very strong argument that the aura of modernity in art is not a depiction of the kind of art that are created today but the survival of art that where made centuries and decades ago, provided they can serve the very purpose for which users of today want them to serve. In this regard, he states that “the great artists of the early century never disappeared, that what we are witnessing today is more accurately survival rather than revival”12. Using examples of how there has been the exhibition of hundreds of works that were produced in the last century that have successfully attracted tourists from far and new in making a new industry of art exhibition on its own, Perloff says that what should be modern about a piece of art is whether the art is able to serve a modern purpose or has outlived its relevance. Indeed, there is much relation between what Perloff argues of in the aura of modernity and what Walter Benjamin put up in his thesis on the age of mechanical reproduction as Walter was more concerned about how artists can continue to make relevance of existing works of art by altering them in a number of ways as Duchamp did to give new meanings and implications to them13. Conclusion Art will continue to be a phenomenal part of human functioning and will continue to have its place as the spice of life as it continues to trill the world with variety and dynamism. However, it is important to draw a line between what originality is and what ordinariness is. Through his essay, Walter Benjamin has more or less paid tribute to Duchamp who successfully prefigured the thesis of Walter in the reproduction of important works of art in mechanical formats. Walter through his essay has demonstrated the need for paying homage and reverence to authentic works of art by reproducing them. Mechanical reproduction is therefore a way of bringing back to life, works of art that would have otherwise been abandoned and died off due to the absence of further work being done on them14. Once Duchamp took after this path, it can be concluded that indeed, though Walter was the owner of the essay, Duchamp long lived the dream which was echoed in the thesis of Walter. REFERENCE LIST Adorno T, Aesthetic Theory (London: Routledge, 1984). Banville J, “The Rescue of W. B. Yeats,” New York Review of Books (26 Feb. 2004) 14. Bernstein T, A Poetics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992) 3, 93. Jameson F, “Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism” (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991) 15. Kermode F, The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (New York: Oxford, 1967) 108, 110-11. Malcolm J, “Gertrude Stein’s War,” The New Yorker (2 June 2003) 58-81. Ozick C, “T. S. Eliot at 101,” The New Yorker (20 November 1989) 119-54; see 121, 152-54. Perloff M, Twenty-First Century Modernism: The New Poetics (Cambridge: Blackwell, 2002) 46-50 Perloff M. (2005). The Aura of Modernism. Modernist Cultures, Vol. 1: Issue 1, Spring 2005. Pound E, ABC of Reading (New York: New Directions, 1934) 29. Pound E, Literary Essays, ed. T. S. Eliot (London: Faber and Faber, 1945) 4-5. Sjaakjansen (2012). C’est la faute a Duchamp: Kunst anders. [Online] http://www.sjaakjansen.nl/2012/10/31/cest-la-faute-a-duchamp-kunst-anders/ [March 17, 2013] Stein G, “What are Master-Pieces,” Writings, Volume 2: 1932-1946 (New York: Library of America, 1998) 356. Wilder T, “Introduction” to Gertrude Stein, Four in America (1934; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1947) vi-vii. Wittenstein L, Zettel, (Berkeley: University of California Press 1970) 160. Read More