Aura

Aura is a crucial concept of Walter Benjamin's essay The work of art in the age of its technical reproducibility. The core idea of the essay is that technical reproducibility is dissolving the aura of the artwork by loosening its ties to tradition and ritual and is thereby an emancipatory effect. I have already criticized the technological determinism of Benjamin's essay and now it is time to ask whether the critical concept of aura can be salvaged. What is aura according to Benjamin? The essay lacks a clear definition. He starts by discussing "originality". He writes that with technical reproducibly the originality of the work of art, it's "here and now /.../ it's unique existence in the place where it is present," is dissolving. In this process the Aura, the "unique impression of distance, as close it may be" is also lost. Aura was reproduced by ritual, it was part of the traditional use of art, it had cult value.

What are we to think of the enigmatic definition of aura: "unique impression of distance, as close as it may be" It reminds us of Barthes' description of myth as alibi. He presents us with the image of a train ride during which one is looking through the window: as ones own reflection on the glass and the view through the window are never in the same place, so the mythical (second-order) signifier and signified can not be grasped as a whole. The whole (the sign) therefore acquires the characteristic of an infernal distance, and this distance increases with closeness. Closeness is the modus operandi of myth for Barthes: when we are presented with the image of the saluting soldier, French imperialism is right there, presenting itself as the most obvious commonsensical fact. But at the same time it eludes us with its infernal distance, it jumps just out of reach at the moment we reach for it. What Barthes analysed was aura in the age of technological reproducibility.

Benjamin made the mistake of tackling aura from a purely technological viewpoint. Therefore he could not see that aura could flourish even in face of technological reproducibility. Creation of aura is a process that transcends the creation, reproduction and reception of works of art. In romanticism for example discourses of "genius" accompanied art and made sure it is received with awe for the singular abilities of the artist-god. The culture industry creates stars for the same purpose, although it produces for a mass market and is therefore geared towards the highest level of technical reproducibility and the availability of its products is even enhanced by illegal exchange on the internet. Benjamin exhibited a naive trust in the masses and their need to "bring things close" since - as Barthes has shown - an illusion of closeness is the modus operandi of myth.

But Barthes' brilliant analysis of signifying processes also does not bring us closer to an emancipatory theory of art. In a sense Barthes' analysis is even narrower - and perhaps this is the only reason fewer problems can be pointed out - because his analysis is limited to the structure of myth and ignores the whole context of it's creation and reception, it is completely ahistorical. His belief that by analysing myths they will lose their function was just as naive. A theory that is to have emancipatory potential must take into account social conditions of the production and effectiveness of aura. I see two particularly useful starting points for this endeavour. On the one hand are Adorno's writings on the culture industry and his idea that for art to have a critical potential it's production must have some level of autonomy from social praxis. His search was also for a form, but an emancipatory one: he believed that only that form which actively resists incorporation into praxis can have critical potential. By the very act of resistance it is a prophecy of a world in which "happiness is be above praxis". This is what promesse de bonheur means for Adorno. On the other is the idea of an aesthetic public sphere which is capable of critical reflection on works of art while individualised recipients are easy prey for manipulation.