The ideas I present in this article are based on some of the concepts that the philosopher Walter Benjamin (Berlin 1892 – Portbou, Spain 1940) develops in his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility” (1936). This article also revisits certain key arguments analyzed in my two previous texts (Tonality and the Purpose of Life, The Cult to the Ephemeral and its Effect on Art). In a certain way, therefore, this article completes a triptych that gathers my understanding of art and its current state. It is odd that in parallel I composed a music triptych, even though there is no conceptual relation…

For those of you acquainted with the thought of Walter Benjamin, let me clarify that this article does not pretend to be an analysis or critical review of his essay. Neither is this article an attempt to elaborate on his ideas. Rather, I take such concepts as “aura” along a very different, even opposite, path.

In addition to the concept of “aura” and its relation to the “ritual,” another element of Benjamin’s essay that sparked my attention is his description of the relationship between art and the masses. His essay, written in 1936, explores the characteristics of a new art – movies – to describe the transformation process affecting the arts. Although I will reflect on this insight later in this article, I cannot defer quoting a phrase Benjamin uses that effectively captures what I exposed in The Cult to the Ephemeral and its effect on Art:

Beyond conceptual differences, the notion of a work of art having an “aura” is interesting in itself. Referring to the “natural aura of things,” Benjamin describes it as:

In the case of a work of art, the aura is some sort of magical or energetic quality, consubstantial with the work with which it relates and indispensable for its manifestation. Now, my understanding of “aura” differs radically from Benjamin’s since he links the aura to the uniqueness or authenticity of a work of art. This unicity condition is Benjamin’s main premise to explain why the massive reproduction of a work of art results in the atrophy of its aura:

I believe, however, that the aura of a work is not inextricable from its original. Its survival through replicas depends partially on the quality of the reproduction, but also on other factors such as the type of relationship established between the work of art and its recipients. For different reasons, Benjamin points in a direction that is key to understanding the ideas that I will develop in this article:

Let us begin by developing the concept of the “aura” of a work of art. Benjamin is on the right track when he perceives the existence of an “energy” that emanates from an artwork. He attributes this energy to the cultural and historical background that attaches to each original work. He states that even the imperfections due to aging and wear form part of the work’s aura. It is logical, therefore, for Benjamin to consider that reproductions annihilate the aura because there are aspects of the original piece that are simply impossible to reproduce.

As I have insisted on my previous articles, “art is communication.” A work of art comes to life the moment there is communication between the work and its recipient. This communication is reflected in the impact that the work has over its beholder. The work of art is alive while this phenomenon takes place. The rest of the time, the work remains in an idle state. It has the potential to become art at any time.

I believe this potential is the aura of the work. When there is a connection between work and recipient, an auratic movement takes place. In other words, the potential energy of the aura becomes “kinetic aura” transporting all the elements of the work responsible for awakening in the recipient a wide variety of feelings, sensations, rational or subjective enjoyment, etc.

This potential energy has different gradations; that is, the aura of some works is more intense than others. Masterpieces contain a powerful aura while others, which should still be considered as works of art given their ability to communicate, have a weak aura capable of awakening just a fraction of what a “greater” work can produce.

The artist imprints the aura to his work during the creative process. This is where the soul of the work resides. The aura can reach out and touch our souls. Therein resides its power and unique capacity to move us in ways that we cannot describe rationally. I consider this to be what is most mysterious and fascinating about the phenomenon of artistic creation.

It is important to make a clear distinction between the concepts of “potential aura” and “kinetic aura”. The potential aura does not vary; it is linked to the work of art and it exists regardless of whether it is activated or not. On the other hand, the intensity of the kinetic aura depends on a number of factors. A work can have an enormous potential aura, and yet the communication with the recipient could produce an insignificant amount of kinetic aura, incapable of producing a substantial effect.

Let me illustrate this with a simple example. Let us suppose that we are in a crowded shopping mall, with reggaeton sounding at a high volume through the speakers system. You see someone approaching with a t-shirt that has an impeccable reproduction of the “Mona Lisa”. You had never seen that image before. It is more than likely that it would produce little or no impression on you. Benjamin would argue that this is a perfect example of how massive reproduction destroys the aura of works. However, if we could take this t-shirt to a room (always assuming that the reproduction is of the highest quality), lay it on a flat surface, hang it on the wall and create an appropriate environment with the correct illumination, probably a very effective artistic communication phenomenon would take place.

Thus, we see that the effectiveness of the artistic communication process or, in other words, the “intensity” of its “kinetic aura,” depends on factors that are not intrinsic to the original work of art. The “Mona Lisa” is “in essence” the same in the t-shirt as it is in the original painting at the Louvre museum. If we could move the painting from the Louvre and place it in an inappropriate setting, its kinetic aura would be severely diminished.

The effectiveness in the transformation of the potential aura depends on a number of factors. If we are talking about a reproduction, its quality is obviously fundamental. A poor, pixeled reproduction of the Mona Lisa will not generate a significant reaction even if we place it in the best possible environment. The disposition of the recipient is another key factor. Benjamin is quite right when he says that “art demands recollection.” And this is where the “ritual” becomes significant.

Benjamin links aura with ritual, and ritual, in turn, with tradition and culture. This is a very good observation:

We can see that Benjamin insists on the idea of attributing to the aura only the uniqueness implied in the original work of art. Following my line of argument, if we continue to assume that both the original work and its (quality) reproductions have potential aura, we can extrapolate what he says about the importance of the ritual. With all due respect, I will transform his phrase:

“The unique value of the “authentic” work of art is based in the ritual where it had its first and original useful value”

into

“the communicative capacity of a work of art depends on the disposition of the recipient and the conditions under which such communication is produced.”

Let us illustrate the importance of the ritual by reflecting on the resurgence of vinyl records. For many people, this revival has no logical explanation. It is even more puzzling in the case of modern recordings that live in the digital domain from the moment of their creation. Therefore, their migration to an analog domain cannot result in a significant change of their audio characteristics.

Sales of vinyl records continue to grow nevertheless, including new editions of works originally recorded analogically as well as new recordings, totally digital from beginning to end. We can find in the ritual an explanation to this phenomenon. The listening experience of a vinyl record involves a totally different disposition from the listener. This media facilitates a setting that favors listening with the appropriate state of recollection. If the listener’s disposition is correct, that is, if he does not play the record as background music but sits and listens to the music while examining the artwork, reading the lyrics, etc., the optimal conditions are created for the maximum transmission of kinetic aura. The listener can assimilate the totality of the work’s aura, all its auratic potential. For this listener, the experience is very different, much more intense, than when he listens to the digital version. Many attribute this difference to “something” in the analog environment that transforms the work. But, in the majority of cases, what happens is that when we listen to digital versions, we do so in a completely different setting: using headphones while riding on the bus or driving, for instance. Many are not conscious of the fact that the key is in the ritual, not in the audio characteristics.

I do not want to imply that there cannot be an effective communication when one listens to a CD or a downloaded file. But it is much less likely that the ideal conditions will be met for an effective communication. We listen to digital versions while moving from one place to another, or as background to other activities. It is true that many people listen to CDs the same way as those who collect vinyl records, but there is a subtle difference: those who listen to CDs in a recollected setting do so because they want to. Those who listen to a vinyl album in such an environment do so because they have to. You cannot listen to a vinyl record while riding a bus, for instance, and therein lies its major appeal.

I hope the above explanation shows the importance of the ritual. I do not link the ritual to its cultural, magical, religious or historic background, as Benjamin does. In my view, the ritual, in terms of its relationship with art, is nothing more than a set of characteristics (procedures and settings) that place the recipient in an adequate state of recollection to have the best possible disposition to undergo the act of communion with the artistic work.

I want to emphasize the words “disposition”, “communion” and “recollection,” because these words summarize well those aspects of humanity that are being dissolved in the “entertainment society,” as I described in my article The Cult to the Ephemeral and its effect on Art. Indeed, as Benjamin says:

I cannot extend on this statement without transforming it into an analysis of Walter Benjamin’s ideas. However, it is important to note that Benjamin’s notion of “art politicization” is closely linked to his Marxist vision of society, where what is most important is the day-to-day ordinary activities of the proletarian mass. Benjamin argues that the destruction of aura is a positive development since it allows art to be detached from its cultural and traditional context, transforming art into something that can be reused, reassembled, and recombined in a rhizomatic fashion.

Evidently, I strongly disagree with this position since I consider that this manipulation of art is heretic. But consistent with my determination to stay away from politics in these articles, I will just highlight that Benjamin, already back in 1936, was able to perceive the profound cultural changes that were about to occur at a great scale with the massification that occurred half a century later, propelled asymptotically by the Internet:

“Distraction” (or entertainment) as a type of social behavior.

Today we can say that entertainment has become a pattern of behavior that will be considered as one of the most important identity signs of society in the late XX and early XXI centuries.

We have seen that the manifestation of the artistic phenomena depends on the intensity of its aura and the recipient’s disposition. The ritual creates an appropriate environment for the disposition of the recipient, but, ultimately, his attitude is what determines the outcome. Even if one follows the ritual under a perfect setting, the intensity of the artistic manifestation will be diminished unless the disposition of the recipient is adequate. Now we can see the relevance of Benjamin’s quote introduced at the beginning of the article:

This idea reinforces the arguments exposed in The Cult to the Ephemeral and its effect on Art where I speak about the need to be more selective and not to fall into the temptation of becoming massive art consumers. Simply, we cannot be massive art consumers without reducing dramatically the kinetic aura and, therefore, greatly diminishing the manifestation of the artistic phenomenon as I understand it. If we could express this idea mathematically, the intensity of the artistic phenomenon as a result of adequately listening and assimilating a short selection of works would be greater than the result of “listening on the fly” to a large number of works. By “listening on the fly” I do not mean listening briefly to fragments of an album. In my opinion, listening to an album a couple of times, or maybe even more but while paying attention to other matters, is still “listening on the fly.” Listening to five different album, let us say, on a single day cannot produce an effective communication unless we are already wholly acquainted with each work and we have enough time to put all our attention to each listening session.

I insist on the need to be more selective. Do not try to listen to every new album on the market, but rather focus your attention on works whose style or authors are more akin to your aesthetic preferences. Of course, this does not mean that one should not be open to trying other styles, but always maintaining the motto: “less is more.”

A final note

A good friend of mine, while proofreading this article, came across this interesting video. The Washington Post decided to do an experiment and put the famous violinist Joshua Bell, with his $3.5 million dollar violin, on a Metro station during morning rush hour. Look at what happened:

The conclusions of the study were centered around topics such as whether beauty exists or not, or the current superficial approach to life, the rat race (much in line with my article The Cult to the Ephemeral and Its Effect on Art), the snobbish attitude towards classical music, etc. However, another explanation might be that the conditions were not met for an effective transformation of potential into kinetic aura. I argue that if we could place the same 1100 people in an appropriate setting (for example, a beautiful cathedral with an excellent acoustic) and Bell played exactly the same music, a much higher percentage would have been moved by Bach’s art even if the concert was free and nobody knew who the violinist was. What happened in the Metro, was that there was hardly any artistic manifestation at all in spite of the enormous potential aura of the work.

Let’s change the scene: Bell is not a violinist but rather an excellent art rock album urging fans for attention. And fans are rushing by the album while thinking: “I cannot spend so much time on you, there’s so much new music to be listened to….”.