Summary
Benjamin denotes two ways that art is received and valued: the cult and the exhibition. Most art now gains its value from exhibition—from being viewed, as the cult value of art (associated with ritual, religion, and ceremony) has all but disappeared. He uses the example of photography, noting that photographs of deceased loved one still retain private "cult" value while photographs of deserted public spaces represent the value of exhibition. Photography, he concludes, altered the entire nature of art.
Now, film is producing a change of its own. The process of film production, Benjamin argues, highlights the exhibition value of film as an artistic mode. With the audience replaced by a camera, "the performance of the actor is subjected to a series of optical tests" (230). Furthermore, that actors must perform without an audience means that their aura disappears, as aura is "tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it" (231). Finally, that the audience comes to identify with the camera rather than the actor transforms the role of viewers more generally: all spectators are suddenly thrust into the role of critics.
Mechanical reproduction, then, changes the response of the public toward art in general. Benjamin argues that film offers for the masses simultaneous enjoyment and criticism in a way that painting simply could not. Movie-going is, he notes, a collective experience that allows the masses to "organize and control themselves in their reception" (237).
Analysis
As Benjamin moves further into his argument about the production and reception of art, he provides more background explication for why he sees film as the ultimate example of how art and its consumption has changed. This theoretical scaffolding distinguishes between art that is valued for its "cult" attributes and that valued for its "exhibition" ones. Benjamin uses the term "cult" to denote a connection to spirituality, ritual, or ceremony—that is, art that is created for a purpose other than simple viewing. An example of this type of cult art are the cave drawings of prehistoric men, which were created primarily as methods of communicating with the gods. By contrast, exhibition art is made to be viewed, and Benjamin argues that the concept of cult art has essentially disappeared from the zeitgeist altogether. When people think about art, they think about something that is put on display and accessible to all. This perception has been influenced in large part, Benjamin argues, by mechanical reproduction.
Benjamin delves into film as the paragon of exhibition art. He highlights three central figures in his argument, explaining how each contributes to the diminishing of the artistic aura on different levels: the camera, the actor, and the audience. The camera "need not respect the performance as an integral whole," meaning that the camera and the cameraman have the advantage of shooting from multiple perspectives at different times (230). Similarly, the actor is no longer the same type of actor as a theater actor, because film production takes place over many months, in many different places, and rarely are the scenes shot in the order they appear on screen. This mode of production, Benjamin argues, alienates the actor from the audience, to be sure, but also from himself: "For the first time . . . man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it" (231). In other words, Benjamin maintains that by replacing the audience with a camera, the authenticity of the performance—from which aura derives—disappears.
