Awakening From The Capitalist Nightmare.      PT2. 

"Our taverns and our metropolitan streets, our offices and furnished rooms, our railroad stations and our factories appeared to have us locked up hopelessly. Then came the film and burst this prison-world asunder by the dynamite of the tenth of a second, so that now in the midst of its far-flung ruins and debris, we calmly and adventurously go travelling".- Walter Benjamin (1968:p236)

New technology in the form of film and photography, Benjamin believed, holds the key to this transformation. In his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” he looked at the effect of these on society. Marx explored the connection between a society’s modes of production and its culture and ideology (ie its base and superstructure). To orthodox Marxists the base is seen as the determining factor, and the superstructure merely its reflection- even though this is probably not what Marx meant. Engels argued at length that his and Marx’s emphasis on the pre-emminence of the material base of society was a tactical one which should be seen in the context of their ongoing debate with the idealism of the Young Hegelians. (Hasslet:P 20) Hasslet also points to the fact that the original German terms interpreted as base and superstructure are actually railroad terminology for the rails and the moving carriages. This calls to mind a much more fluid image than the English terms which suggest static image of a house and it’s foundations. Benjamin saw a dialectical interplay between the two and sought “the expression of the economy in its culture……, not the economic origins of culture.”(Benjamin; Quoted in Schwartz:p 1727) He argued that “(t)he mode of human sense perception changes with humanities entire mode of existence.” (Benjamin:1968:p111)

New technology offered not only a change in superstructural modes of thought and culture but entirely new modes of perception and existence. What photography did was to offer mass reproduction of original artworks. The effect of this was to make these works of art accessible to a much wider audience. It also however interferes with the “authenticity” of the original (which Benjamin described as “the essence of all that is transmissable from its beginning…it’s testimony to the history it has experienced”(Benjamin:1968:p 220)). The reproduced object is “detached from the domain of tradition”. It loses its “aura”. Film and photography also reveal aspects of reality invisible to the naked eye : it -“reveals the secret of motion” and through enlagement “reveals visual worlds which dwell in the smallest things.”(Benjamin: quoted in Gilloch:p 175). Film has the ability to shock and disorientate the viewer through use of close ups, position changes, slow motion, flashbacks and numerous other techniques. It also allows collective rather than solitary viewing, thus calling into being a new collective audience able to experience and express a collective dreaming. According to Benjamin “These processes lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary crisis and renewal of mankind.”(Benjamin:1968: 221) Art over time has become so laden with the voice of tradition that it is impossible to hear its true voice. This shattering makes way for new interpretations, new voices, new traditions. The masses are now able to relate to art in a way that is meaningful to them. He goes on to remind us that art had its origin in ritual- its primary purpose being magical or religious-, but as society had become secularised this had led to the rise of the cult of beauty and the doctrine of art for arts sake- which denied the social function of art. Thus mechanical reproduction “emancipates the wok of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual” instead “it begins to be based on another practice –politics.”(Benjamin:1968:p224). Art becomes a weapon for “the formulation of revolutionary demands.” Looking at the art of the time we can see how this loss of aura played out.

On the negative side there is the commodification of art through advertising. We also however see the rise of the “avant-garde.” Photography makes realistic presentation in the fine arts ( painting. sculpture) redundant, freeing the artist to experiment with new ways of representation- thus we see the rise of Dada, surrealism, and cubism which are revolutionary in that they challenge traditional ways of seeing and experiencing the world. Benjamin reminds us , at the end of the essay however that though the positive potential inherent in the new technology may be harnessed for progress it was also being used by the Fascists to further their own ends. He warns that the fascist “aestheticisation of politics” (Benjamin:1968:p242)- by which he referred to the Nazi’s harnessing of art, film, music, architecture to create a new mythology- attempts to re-create aura- replacing it with a new tradition- (the spectacular theatrical ritual of Nazi rallies and the “Cult of the Fuhrer”)- and will lead to “violation of the masses” and inevitably to war. “It’s (ie humanitys) self-alienation” he wrote “has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order. This is the situation of politics which fascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art.” (Benjamin:1968:p242) This last sentence is not merely a statement of fact but a powerful call to arms to those wishing to counter the rise of fascism to actively participate in the process of using new modes of technology- and the new ways of experiencing the world they herald in-to bring about the “shattering of tradition” and “the renewal of mankind.”

While in his “Mechanical Reproduction” essay Benjamin revels in the role of self-confessed nihilist glorifying the death of tradition, in “The Storyteller” he reveals a more ambivalent attitude - bemoaning the loss of the traditional art of storytelling. Storytelling was a communal art and conveyed the experience and wisdom of previous generations on to the living community. The storyteller draws from his own experience and through the “counsel woven into the fabric of real life” provides illumination.(Benjamin:1968:p 87) The story does not make its meaning obvious, but rather speaks to us through the subconscious. It does not provide answers- rather “a proposal concerning the continuation of a story which is just unfolding.” (ibid p86) “(I)t is half the art of storytelling to keep a story free from explanation as one reproduces it” -Benjamin writes -“The most extraordinary things, marvelous things, are related with the greatest accuracy, but the psychological connection of the event is not forced on the reader. It is left up to him to interpret things the way he understands them.” (ibid:p89) The story doesn’t end , it continues on as new events are constantly added, new experiences lived. The problem is that in that in the modern world ( and this applies even more so today than in Benjamin’s time)- “the new form of communication is information” and this is incompatible with story telling as “no event any longer comes to us without already being shot through with explanation.”(ibid;p89) Information explains the meaning of the story and brings it to an end. There is no room for independent speculation- for meditation - for letting the story speak to the subconscious. Although there seems to be some contradiction between the two pieces of writing- one reveling in the loss of tradition, the other bemoaning it - there is however a common theme. Both tradition and information impose a layer of meaning or understanding between the subject and the object. Benjamin’s concern is to strip away this imposed layer and allow the object/story to come together with the subject in a way that allows for new, rather than imposed understanding.