In his essay, Benjamin notes, “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art” (Benjamin, 3). He discusses how original art pieces are deep rooted in tradition, are unique, create a feeling of experience when viewed. He compares that with photography and film, the idea of reproducibility is challenged, considering the idea of the true original is less relevant. With photography, the art is made from negatives, and the desire to preserve an original, or first copy, is lost. When applying these ideas to our current digital advancements, the same ideas hold validity. For example, with net art, the desire for an “original” copy is an impossible concept. Art for the web is created entirely as a mass expression. With reproduction of more traditional forms, such as painting, the work was created as a singular expression, losing value when distributed in copy form. When art is created for mass distribution, the effect of reproduction changes from a negative impact to the central point and effort of the work itself. A section of the essay that seems to outline current thought quite well states, “Namely, the desire of contemporary masses to bring things ‘closer’ spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction. Every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by ways of its likeness, its reproduction” (Benjamin 4). This rings very true when looking at the digital age we are in. Our avenues of digital communication and network of representation of art such as sites of the Flickr type, both construct a community and fuel reproduction of art through sharing work. The old days of scoffing at and finding reproductions worthless are far-gone when looking at what is going on in the digital world. It can be said that what people desire in this age are reproductions themselves. Benjamin notes that the total function of art is reversed with photography and film. Another portion of the essay that I found significant is where Benjamin notes, “With emancipation of the various art practices from ritual go increasing opportunities for the exhibition of their products. It is easier to exhibit a portrait bust that can be sent here and there than to exhibit the statue of a divinity that has its fixed place in the interior of a temple” (Benjamin 5). Here, he is touching on the very beginning of the concept in the art world that has run rampant in our technological world. Size matters. The push for everything to be smaller and smaller and more mobile and accessible can easily be seen in technology. Value on smaller technological objects is also clear through the high prices that come with such materials. This transition to experimentation with smaller objects in art is apparent with the digital age, considering the actual materials do not exist beyond Internet space. It is amazing to me that there was a time where photography was challenged and scrutinized out of being an actual art form and we have made such progress from that time to the point where digital art, non-existent in any material form, is thought a true art form.
After reading Vannevar Bush’s essay, one of the most striking concepts he offered is that in his time, our ability to hold our race’s vast history and knowledge had become obsolete, warranting a huge necessity for technological advancement. He talks about the indexing system in libraries and the copious amount of information and scholarly work rendered pointless due to its inaccessibility. He describes his ideas for a system that can be realized in today’s age as library computer databases. He speaks of the possibility to condense an entire library of books to fit the end of a desk. In this day and age, fitting an entire library of books onto a handheld device is more like it. The Internet and the development of search engines seem to be the modern-day answer to Bush’s forward thinking. He talks of how the human mind works by association of thought, an “intricate web of trails.” Though he notes that duplicating a system for indexing based on this idea is not hopeful, it absolutely exists today. The Internet works with selection by association to appeal to the mind. So much research is put towards how to make sites accessible, what hooks traffic, what constitutes site aesthetics, all to make web pages and search engines more successful.
Bush describes so many areas for technological improvement that have now been incorporated into everyday life, such as credit cards, computers, cell phones, scientific calculators, voice activated word processors, digital cameras, and internet search engines. It is something I have never thought through entirely, how different human intellectual progress and experience would be without the advancements we have made since Bush’s 1945 essay. He notes, “There may be millions of fine thoughts, and the account of the experience on which they are based, all encased within stone walls of acceptable architectural form; but if the scholar can get at only one a week by diligent search, his syntheses are not likely to keep up with the current scene” (Bush 7). Our age of technology is all about keeping people up to speed. It is growing and growing at such an incredible speed which leaves me wondering; are we eventually going to have to come up with a new system for indexing the internet when it gets too large to comprehend? In Bush’s time, the impossibility for people to stay afloat on all the information out there was a problem, and yet I can’t even imagine a person out there who knows all there is to know on the internet today.
