>Walter Benjamin’s "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) argues that technology (photography/film) destroys an artwork's "aura"—its unique existence in time and space—by making it mass-producible. While this eliminates art's traditional cult/ritual value, Benjamin viewed it positively, as it democratizes art and shifts its purpose from ritual to politics.
I didn't realize people had been using the retarded "democratizing art" argument before AI art existed. I was wondering where that phrase came from and why pro-AI people mindlessly repeat it. Really this only really applies to film which needs lots of resources and a cast, and niche visual arts like sculpting which rely on expensive materials. Pencils and pens and paper have been affordable for hundreds of years. Even when paper was expensive in the 18th century people still wrotee letters to each other all the time. You can draw with literal charcoal. Folk music had existed forever, people who can't afford "real instruments" made due with homemade banjos and whisky jugs and washboards.The point is price has never been been an issue for genuinely creative people. Film/TV is not the only medium.
>>25263262Oh and I completely forgot about papier mache too. Even if you can't afford bronze or marble there's still plenty of ways to get into sculpting and other visual art styles. Literally just go to an arts and crafts store. Sewing and stitching are relatively cheap too. If you can't make a movie or opera, try a local stage play or musical.
>>25263262>Really this only really applies to film which needs lots of resources and a cast, and niche visual arts like sculpting which rely on expensive materials.It applies to more or less every art form, which is always wedded to the ruling class' interests. Sure you could "draw with charcoal" in the Middle Ages, but the Church could afford to build expensive churches, hire the best artists, and also hire officials to punish you if you were caught scribbling lewd charcoal grafitti on church walls.
>>25263262>>25263271None of those are paths to status, which is the only thing humans do/should care about.
'Works of art' are just idiosycratic stories that appeal to people's senses and tastes. It has to pass the aesthetic hurdle before it competes in the ideological space. There is no ideology without sexy, or at least it doesn't begin or propagate itself on its own, like any well-functioning parasite. Art creates ideas or novelty? More like art forces ideology, it is very weaponised.
>>25263317You're missing that industrialization of art killed loca scenes and community folk art. A medieval craftsman would make woodcut blocks with religious imagery on them that would delight the whole community and possibly get shown off at the local church. An Appalachian folk band or southern ragtime band could perform at local festivals and entertain their friends and family. Now all that exists is pop art, art intended for mass consumption in the attempt to make money or fame. Local and regional cultures get paved over and everything becomes homogenized.
>>25263248Lately I've been wondering why "legacy art" (books, films, music, architecture, etc.) is so dead in the 21st century while the only art forms that seem authentic are Internet memes and Internet communication in general.I think it's because we've become too disenchanted to enjoy legacy art since it's authoritative, as it relies on a power imbalance between the artist and the consumer. Art is inherently problematic because the artist holds institutional and psychological power over the consumer. In the 2020s however this isn't a problem, because anyone can make a meme making fun of e.g. Nolan's Odyssey and amass more views than the film itself. Art has been democratized and made more interactive.
>>25263326Adorno was right when he noted that true works of art break the status quo. Art is always political.AI art can never be anything but simply rehash of the old. It isn't true art and it can't be
>>25263994>Adorno was right when he noted that true works of art break the status quo. Nah, not really>Art is always political.Yes>AI art can never be anything but simply rehash of the old. It isn't true art and it can't beWhy?
>>25263994>Art is always politicalWhat does this even mean when people say it? It's such a vague platitude.
The means of mass-production are owned by the capitalist class, they are not democratic. This includes AI which will start charging at the point it approaches anything resembling quality, and I highly doubt using it regularly for detailed or extensive works will be affordable for most people. Right now it is just used to recycle art from the working class it has sifted through and manufacturing inferior quality work with the authorship sanded away
>>25264300>manufacturing inferior quality workYou can't be serious. At best it's on par with what the average artoid shits out these days
>>25265045It doesn't rip-off "average" work
>>25263248Less widely reported Benjamin facts: proudly celebrated reading none of the books he spent all his money on; blew his own brains out not 24 hours before his passage was to be granted out of Europe. Really smart guy.
>>25265185That's just the average /lit/ user
>>25263248i think this essay is a lot more subtle than people give it credit. of course i haven read it in a decade. off hand, id say its easy reproduction outside of the cult place that destroys 'aura' (puts shit on postcards, etc) - not technology. which is kinda the current state of visual AI digital hyper reproduction. film i think is more 'democractic' as its experience is more mass/available, not because anyone can pick up a camera (just as anyone can pick up a pencil). after that, his take on film really gets formal, the viewing techniques that the movie camera can do allow new insights, bring us new views of the present. so i dont think there is a vague democratizing.
>>25263994>hasnt seen dripwarts vids>type shit
>>25263248Walter Benjamin is a retard who correctly identified that fascism was the aestheticization of politics who then wrongly believed that the solution to this was politicize Aesthetics in order to bring about Revolution™As you can see from our recent history, the fusion of politics and art largely lead to the same result in the communist and fascist regimes. The politicization of art and the aestheticization of politics both resulted in the same totalizing tendency,especially with regards to the future. Hell, the only reason this was staved off in the free world for as long as it has been is because the older generations like Boomers and Gen X largely gave up on the future as a theme in both politics and art, instead opting to think of the future as more or less the same as today but with more convenient technological novelties
>>25265489Sorry, forgot to address the topic at handProbably not, as AI art is capital taking over the creation of art without human labor. Though on the other hand he might have advocated for creating Revolutionary™ image generators and language models in order to disseminate the Revolution™ to the proles
