In
this essay, I offer a detailed critical analysis of Warhol's reproduction of Mona
Lisa using Walter Benjamin's ' Art in the Age of Mechanical reproduction'. I
will outline first the wider context of the terms art reproduction and
appropriation, then sketching their relationship to industrialisation and
finally offering my own views as an art student. My reason for picking up this
subject is the feeling of disturbance and curiosity in my mind about the
desirability of Mona Lisa being as strong as ever despite blatant reproductions
produced over the centuries. My recent visit to the Louvre only heightened this
disturbance – there I was along with streams of visitors mesmerised by this
painting of Lisa del Giocondo by Leonardo da Vinci. (Figure 1) I felt this aura
and some kind of magnetism that did not diminish when I went to the museum shop
and saw ‘Mona Lisa on books, t-shirts...you name it. Why did that mystique and
magnetism not diminish?
First
of all, there is no denying that a reproduction is not the same as the original
artwork. The artist who understood this best was Andy Warhol famous for his
infinite series of repetitive prints. The Mona Lisa has been one of the most
reproduced images as it has been used in advertising, consumer products and art
history. One of the foremost examples is Duchamp's rendering of a moustache and
goatee on a cheap postcard size reproduction of the Mona Lisa which saw the
beginning of the 'readymade reproduction'. (Figure 2) These reproductions made
the meanings of art ambiguous.
Pop
artist Andy Warhol recognised the fact that the Mona Lisa was as famous as the
celebrity Marilyn Monroe and as such fame was a commodity and that endless
replications of the celebrity's face made it so. Warhol adapted a technique
from commercial printing, in which a photographic image could be transferred to
a canvas by pushing paint through a silkscreen. Warhol made numerous copies in
various colours and sizes, these copies can be deemed as appropriation of art. (Figure
3)
'All
my images are the same, but very different at the same time... Isn't life a
series of images that change as they repeat themselves?'(Bockris,V. (1989):
326)
Nobody
can mistake Warhol's Mona Lisa as the Renaissance original. (Keats, J. 2013)
Warhol proved that legitimate art could be as powerful as the counterfeit. He
showed the extent to which the forger’s art can be appropriated, the mantle of
anxiety reclaimed.
Warhol’s
prints were numbered with the lowest numbers being the most valuable as if
retaining the idea of the ‘aura of the original’ as described by Walter
Benjamin.
With industrialisation and modern
technological means of reproduction the relationship between art and the masses
changed. Knowledge concerning the art of the past can now reach a larger
proportion of the world’s population. However this mechanisation not only
brings about autonomy of the art but also undermines or rather dispels the aura
of fine art as quoted by Walter Benjamin
‘'Reproductive technology, we might say in
general terms, removes the thing reproduced from the realm of tradition. In
making[...]it actualizes what is reproduced'. (Benjamin,
W.2008:7)
In
the Journal of Philosophy of Education, The Re-reading of Benjamin’s theory of
mechanical reproduction, Nick Peim has explained that aura seems to signify
something of the symbolic halo generated by objects of special significance
that is both powerful and indefinite. He has argued that aura is in fact the
necessary property of symbolic representation.
Benjamin
identifies the effect of mechanisation as progressive. The merger of creative
and cultural industries would open the arts to a wider audience .Machines which
were regarded as weapons of art destruction are actually complex tools that can
be used to artistic advantage as is evident in Warhol’s prints. What Warhol
extracted from mass culture was repetition.
Benjamin’s
ideas have been reiterated in the past by writers as Malraux whose theory of
museum-without-walls can be summarised as an imaginary museum of images that
have been reproduced and are made universally available to any individual at
all times. (Walker, John A. (1983): 70) .These reproductions give an impression
of homogeneity of artworks which are originally more disparate than they appear
in reproduction.
Contrary
to this was Adorno, a German-American theorist from the Frankfurt School of
thought, who vehemently argued that the products of mass culture are predictable
and homogenous, maintaining social authority and encouraging people to become
indifferent and conform. The mass public has trouble distinguishing between the
real and the illusionary. Adorno expresses his displeasure quite strongly at
the neutralization of the critical capacity of particular forms and techniques
through their instrumental use, leading to increased marginalisation of
authentic art. Thus Adorno argues: ‘To paint a la cubist in the year 1970 is
like making advertising posters. And the originals are not immune, either, to
this kind of sell out’ (Benjamin, A, 1992: 38-39)
But
isn’t this what the people want? Images are most remembered when simple, clear
and repetitions. We absorb rather than inspect. Indifference becomes our second
skin.
As I
reflect on both sides of the argument, I asked myself a question –has the
religious aura really been dissipated? The cult-value surrounding it may have
been replaced by exhibition-value, but the function of the museum is to
preserve the aura of the work of art and to externalise it. While reviewing and
studying art, I have always felt that the aura still remains a function of the
originals. The evidence of this is the genre known as art photography – where
some photographic prints are being bought and sold at auction rooms for high
prices in just the same way as handmade articles.
Finally,
‘How does it impact me as an Art Student’? This was an interesting question,
because at this point in time, as an Art student I would be naturally biased
towards the benefits of mechanical reproduction and other forms of art
accessibility. This is simply because it lets me view, feel, know about the
art-work and go into the mind of the artist without necessarily travelling
miles to the place where it originated. I cannot help but think about the core
of Benjamin’s argument: the traditional work of art had a presence, an aura,
which was the result of its uniqueness, its presence in time and space, its
unique existence at the place where it happens to be.
A widely held belief is that the effect of
mechanical reproduction was to eliminate the work’s aura and to emancipate it
from its dependence upon ritual. Whilst I agree this could be a consequence of
the advent of technology leading to mechanisation of the arts, it has had a
positive impact as well. The impact that I refer to is the fact that
technological innovations of this kind had a progressive potential, in that
they democratised the means of artistic production. The mechanical method of
silk screen that Warhol discovered has been universally adopted by many
artists. This nature of mass imagery has fascinated other artists like Roy
Lischenstein as well.
Personally,
I feel comforted by the fact that the aura does not really dissipate by
different forms of mechanical reproduction and high visibility. In fact I would
argue that the mystique and the desirability are heightened. I took the liberty
of talking to a few visitors at the museum and did an informal survey. The
majority of the responses concurred with my view. However, this would remain a
subjective opinion, as exemplified by Adorno’s strongly held beliefs of
marginalisation of art due to mass availability.
Bibliography
Books
Benjamin.A, (1992 ) Problems of Modernity: Adorno and Benjamin .Cornwall: T.J.Press
Ltd.
Benjamin,W (2008) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction Translated by J.A. Underwood. London: Penguin Books.
Berger, J.( 1972) Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting
Corporation and Penguin Books
Bockris,V. (1989)The Life and
Death of Andy Warhol. New York: Bantam Books
Vygotsky,Lev S.(1971) The Psychology Of Art . Translated by
Scripta Technica,Inc.U.S.A:The M.I.T. Press
Walker, John A. (1983) Art in the Age of Mass Media .London:
Pluto Press Limited
Welchman, J C. (2003) Art After Appropriation: Essays on Art in
the 1990s.Malta: G+B Arts International
Electronic Journals
Ganis, W.V. (2000) Andy
Warhol’s Iconophilia. Invisible Culture [online] Issue 3. [Accessed on 21
March2014]
Peim, N. (2007) Walter
Benjamin in the Age of digital reproduction: Aura in Education: A re reading of
‘the Work Of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’. Journal of Philosophy of Education. Volume 41, Issue 3
Television programme & educational video viewed
on the Internet
John
Berger/ Ways of Seeing ( 1972) Series 1, Episode 1-4 .BBC,
1972. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk [Accessed
14 Feb 2014]
The
Shock Of The New (2014)Culture as Nature, Episode 7. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgYDuA-fBLg
[Accessed on26 March 2014]
Website
Keats,J( 2013)If Every Artist were as good as Andy Warhol
,Forgery Would be Unnecessary (Book Excerpt-Forged:Why Fakes Are The Great Art
Of Our Age, Oxford University Press)Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2013/01/17/if-every-artist-were-as-good-as-andy-warhol-forgery-would-be-unnecessary-book-excerpt/ [
Accessed on 27 March 2013]
Khan, Y S. (2012)The Political Aesthetic in the Works of
Adorno and Benjamin.Available from: http://radicalnotes.com/2012/03/02/the-political-aesthetic-in-the-works-of-adorno-and-benjamin/ [Accessed on 22 March 2014]
Musee du Louvre ( 2005)A Closer Look At The Mona Lisa. Available
from: http://musee.louvre.fr/oal/joconde/indexEN.html
[Accessed 14 Feb 2014]
Robinson,A. (2014)An A to Z of theory/Walter Benjamin: Art,
Aura And Authenticity. Available from:
http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/walter-benjamin-art-aura-authenticity/
[Accessed on 20 March 2014]
Figure 1
Vinci,L.( 1503-06)Mona
Lisa[poplar wood].At :Louvre
Museum,Paris. Available from http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/mona-lisa-%E2%80%93-portrait-lisa-gherardini-wife-francesco-del-giocondo
[Accessed 15 Feb 2014]
Figure 2
Duchamp,M. ( 1919) L.H.O.O.Q
[ pencil on postcard] At Museum Of Modern Art, Centre Pompidou. Available
from http://www.marcelduchamp.net/L.H.O.O.Q.php
[Accessed 15 Feb 2014]
Figure 3
Warhol, A. (1979) Mona
Lisa [acrylic and silkscreen ink on canvas]
At: Metropolitan Museum Of Art, NY[online] Available from
http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/search-the-collections/489409
[Accessed 29 march 2014]
