Beyond the Screen: The Artist & Modern Cinema

Since Walter Benjamin’s essay, technological developments of the current time has shifted the way we live, experience, appreciate. Cinema as a newly emerging art form at the time was a focal point in the argument that a direct interaction with an audience was no longer possible in a reproduced performance; even with interactive media as an experimental medium, there is nothing to be done to close the gap created by mechanical reproduction. Gadgets for worldwide communication are widely used, though whether or not this can be compared to an interaction in the material world is controversial. Everything feels much closer, yet with more layers of separation than ever.

Regarding photography, and later cinema, Benjamin challenges that the invention of these may have led to a change in the nature of art (227). This change in nature then would lead to a new understanding of what art is. The aim with this essay is to consider how technological developments leading up to the 21st century have affected the public interaction with art and cinema, discussing the effects of modernity, the internet and devices such as smartphones may have altered society’s current relationship with art. This also includes the public view and interaction with the film actor, or in the acculturated form, the celebrity.

A world after reproduction became a standard still has glimpses of the previous era, Art’s existence will most likely be absolute as long as humanity exists. The mechanical reproduction seeks to rid of the aura present in art, almost a core aspect of it. Though it is possible to capture the aura in rare moments, to the masses, it is of little importance – no longer a necessity. One of the most clear modern examples of this is music performances, concerts, where the audience wishes to keep the memories attached to this moment of singularity for later by recording, sacrificing the experience of simple enjoyment. These fragments have become too important to the public perception. For cinema, where the aura of such performances and theater have never been present in the first place, what can be said about its current standing in a digitized world?

All aspects of life are repurposed and commodified to exist within the current capitalist reality, therefore art does not get to exist in a context that is removed from it, only within it. From the ritualistic purpose it has come from, to be socialized and re-contextualized as it no longer was holy as it once had been, to be an artist in itself is no longer a question artistic ability. Digitization has opened the doors further for the reproduction to have wider reach, removing the people further from the originality that art still is able to possess despite the push against it.

Benjamin makes a claim on the mass reproduction, stating quantity was turned into quality (239). In modern cinema, the main idea is to use current tools and the technological developments not to strive for a better, more fulfilling work; but to create, or simply produce, more. After all, the advancement itself has little to do with the quality and rather developing it to make the process run faster and easier, so the production becomes a monster in itself that evolves into an industry, taking away from the theater and the stage more. Meanwhile, reproduction as the current reality leads to the idea that this has always been and should keep being the norm – the consumption of media, rather than the enjoyment of art. High budget films are put forward by big studios with more focus on the reproduction and less so on the acting or the nonexistent stage. Especially now there is not even the opportunity for the actor to have a setting for them to exist and perform, but rather just the camera, and a big, wide, green screen behind them that is meant to be nothing and everything at the same time. Everything is a separate process, the collective seen only as a hassle and even unnecessary, the seamless work ethic replaces the need to capture a moment.

Cinema, as a form of art has always depended on production and reproduction, never truly allowing a series of moving images and cinema as an industry to have the aura that has been mentioned by Benjamin throughout the chapters. Although it is possible to argue that the intended exhibition of films, in a room with a screen that allows the audience to keep their attention on it, with little room for distraction, is able to create a sense of singularity for that specific audience, in that moment where they are experiencing a story for the first time far removed from the outside world. This is further lost with the age of home television and now the digital age, where any and all production is readily available. Not only that, but the audience is able to do with is as it wishes, pause, continue, start over and repeat. A clip, a fragment, can have more worth than the performance as a whole.

This has further implications for the audience, the consumer, who now has a much easier access to any and all products of this reproduction on-demand. The authority transformed itself in a way to allow audiences to truly feel even more in control, though whether or not they have the said authority over a creation is part of the illusion that the capital feeds to the person. Benjamin argues that the interaction between the actor and audience in a theater has now been transformed to be an interaction with the camera; a middle-man that creates the disconnect between the two, not allowing them to have any personal contact. In the current age, this has an added layer of the device, no longer a big screen that the audience interacts with collectively, sharing an experience that is sold to them. With television and series, shows, it was a family device which existed within the walls of a home, a part of the family itself. With streaming, it is a personal device; such as a tablet or a phone, and what is sold with it is instead the convenience, a fragment of the reproduction you can move around and take wherever you go, allowing it to exist with you. Where the stage stands on a higher ground above the audience, the projection screen at a cinema large and further away from those watching; the device is in one’s hands, their rooms, on something tangible and possessed.

The irony is, however, the possession in question does not mean ownership. The uniqueness of the reproduced works have not been a criteria of consideration for many people perhaps in a long time. Convenience being a selling point has many reasons behind it. To quote Benjamin, “[…] technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself.” (220) Although the original remains unattainable, with modern technological advancement the difference between a true image and a reproduced imitation is technically negligible, and we are so far into the development of technology that the general audience perception of such copies are much more favorable than anything closer to the original. It is a luxury, useless to anyone but the fanatic (or ‘lover of art’ as more favorably put by Benjamin), and beyond affordable to a regular working class citizen. The rise of many current day monopolies have started out with the offer to the same class of people, that this is an affordable way to the world of art. Today, these things have once again become the commodities of the rich, and yet again unattainable to the so called “less fortunate”. With the inflated rates, the value of reproduction always runs in the same circle as always. The value of art and creators, however, does not get the same treatment. In an industrialized machine, every artist who does not mimic the machinery they are threatened to be replaced with, gets worse treatment.

Even when physical copies of the said reproduction allowed one to own a fragment and keep it to themselves, with it now being replaced by a subscription to the owner of said copies, there is not even that anymore. The copy can be taken away at any point, no care for the money spent on it. What one spends the money on is the lack of effort needed to attain this copy of a copy of a copy, supposedly available on this context of modern reality, within the device they hold on to for life. “The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property.” (Benjamin 241)

The transportation of an actor’s image, too, is affected by the mass usage of personal devices. The stardom of the previous century allowed the industry to use the public image of film actors, who have come to identify with the camera rather than the audience, and build a cult around a “cultivated” personality. Now, the audience more than ever is able to claim this personality, reveling in the semblance of a closer, personal connection, while in reality the gap is as wide as ever. The audience to the cinema actor is the camera-worker, the crew, the director. Meanwhile, the stage to the audience is the screen. Just as an actor identifies with the cold-edged, unmoving gadget, they identify with their own. There is no emotional attachment to this figure much smaller than one’s hands or fingers, but instead a claim of authority. The screen only allows the public to be harsher with their critics, giving them more power in such criticisms.

In front of the camera and within the grim reality of being an artist in the current industrialized reality, the lines between the character and actor were already blurred. Now, with the need to always be available to the public as an individual has rid off the permission to exist as yourself outside of acting, perhaps getting rid of these lines altogether. Now, it is focal that you not only have this cultivated personality, but you must feed into the illusion that this is who you really are when the camera stops rolling. There is a fine line here, between seeming humble and boasting.

Hollywood glamour has done it’s best to create the illusion that celebrities, on the big screens, were beyond human, stars from galaxies beyond. You would need to strive to be like them, but you never could be them. In the wake of the celebrity culture and its unattainability as the focal point of the marketing, a middle ground has found footing with the invention of the internet. In the early days of it, before the tech takeover, commercialization and imminent implosion of the internet altogether, when social media was only starting out, the millennial generation started a wave of homemade videos, self-cultivated spaces and a new emerging personality – as a term that would later on be popularized in the later decade, an influencer. It would soon become a subset of entertainment.

From the beginning, there was no illusion sold by an industry with the internet. It was free, decentralized, there were no rules set in place yet while it was still taking its baby steps. These people, usually young teenagers or college students as the overwhelming majority of the social users on the ‘net’ had no incentive for such posts. Soon, with the popularization of it, the capital would find it’s way through the core of what has made this short era special and monetize it. The internet became a new platform which allowed the public to, initially, have near full control over their creations and give them a place for others to be able to see, participate and interact with them. With the existence of influencers, the claim that anyone has now the ability to become the artist shifts itself to instead be that anyone can lay claim to fame, as the term micro celebrity puts – not even a minor role, but a microscopic contender of a celebrity status. These were not unattainable superstars, but everyday people, just like you, and that brought an air of personal connection with it.

What does this mean for the public? With the authority we established over screens and actors within this para-social reality of manufactured closeness, familiarity and relatability remains the criteria of good for the general public. In a way, this does nothing but protect the status quo as what is relatable and true has always been controlled by the fascist authority; especially with the corporate claim on the new internet, this is further capitalized on. This was always the case, in fact Benjamin wrote in regard to conventionality: “The greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed, and the truly new is criticized- with aversion.” (234)

In such an environment, cinema is further affected by this as now a lasting art form and industry. Despite the existence of avant-garde and arthouse cinema, and the ability for the public to share their creations with ease on an internet platform, what still emerges from the industry standard and popular culture is the corporation productions with the visual effects, inescapable marketing and monetary support. The art form must then be separated from the industry itself, as the industry does not allow artistic integrity to exceed what is digestible to a target demographic as large as possible.

There is a clear difference between appreciation and entertainment. Salons still exist despite becoming more of a luxury, allowing performances to still exist on big screen, where the rest are contained within personal devices. Cinema can be appreciated as it is intended, or in the comfort of a home; with a clear difference in costs. The illusion of choice by our capitalist reality, where everything is repackaged and resold as an experience rather than an artwork.

Conclusively, Benjamin calls the audience in film absent-minded, suggesting that the public put in position of the critic needs not to pay attention the cult value which is no longer at the forefront (240-241). The industry allows the consumer to stay passive and less critical by focusing less on what is unique about film, and more on the consumption of it. Where even human interaction has become something to capitalize on, there is no aspect of life free from the experience of it.

Reference

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production.” Illuminations, Schocken Books, 2007, pp. 217–251.