Professor Conway
Comm 405
08 October 2008
Midterm Paper
In this paper, I will be presenting the works of Walter Benjamin and Dee Dee Halleck. In his essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin describes a theory of art that would be “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art” (Benjamin 676). In her essay, “The Uses of Community Media,” Halleck details the potential for community-based media in a world dominated by mass media influence. In both cases, the essays center on the role of the audience in viewing media. It’s the audience relationship to the art they’re viewing or making that I will be exploring.
In order to appreciate the impact of each author’s argument I think it’s essential to know where their stance is coming from. Benjamin is a German cultural critic and his essay was published in 1935. Therefore, he’s at a disadvantage when comparing his work to Halleck whose essay was published in 1997. Obviously, in that 42-year gap, there were many advances in terms of media and technology. Just simply addressing mechanical reproduction of film—it has moved from the dominance of cinema and theater to VCR technology in the home during the 1980’s and more recently (1990s) the replacement of physical film stock to digital technology in making movies (Ellis). These advances have changed the face of the media that Benjamin was addressing in 1935. However, many of the questions he raises are still relevant.
Halleck, like Benjamin, is known for her criticism of cultural elements. However, she’s more of a media activist. She uses media and communication technologies in advocating for social movement. One example of this can be seen through her role in the founding of Paper Tiger Television a nonprofit public access outlet based in New York City, created as an alternative in response to the corporate-control media. Halleck’s leadership in alternative media is evident through her essay’s call to action for more support for the community media networks. “Community media deserves funds and space for local production and infrastructure for global exchange” (Halleck 392).
The most obvious difference between Benjamin and Halleck’s essays is their difference of opinion on the audience reaction to media. Benjamin sees film as mere entertainment and recreation for the masses. In his closing Benjamin states:
“The film makes the cult value recede into the background not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but also by the fact that at the movies this position requires no attention. The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one” (Benjamin 693).
Benjamin sees film as a distraction for the audience. Interestingly, Halleck would first agree with Benjamin—at least in terms of the corporate [or mass] media.
“The viewer may actively sodden an entire box of Kleenex watching Di’s cortege, but she is first and foremost passively receiving messages which are made for her, organized and produced in locations apart from her own daily life” (Halleck 385).
Both writers see mass media as having a numbing effect on viewers. Halleck’s disagreement comes in the form of her advocated alternative—community media groups and independent producers. In this form, Halleck sees the probable activism of its viewers, no longer satisfied with entertainment.
“This is media not bent on entertaining or amassing viewer numbers, though on occasion it can be the result. In the alternative media world there is a different operational framework—the relationship between makers and watchers is not at all the same. In fact, the term ‘watchers’ is not descriptive of that relationship at all. ‘Users’ or ‘user-participants’ is perhaps more appropriate’” (Halleck 385).
The second key difference I observed between these works was their judgment of the reproducibility of art. Benjamin sees the reproducibility of art as something positive. “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual” (Benjamin 681). He sees reproducibility as allowing for the democratization of art, bringing it to the masses and out of the control of the bourgeois. Halleck on the other hand, sees reproducibility of media as negative—contributing to the totality of corporate media. “The more channels, the more content remains the same and the more eyeballs are harvested” (Halleck 384).
Though these essays were written in different decades, Benjamin and Halleck agree on some very important issues. The most notable agreement I picked up on was both authors core belief in the power of the people. Because of this belief, both authors can be categorized as technological optimists—defined as those who stress the possibilities for positive change resulting from new technologies and remain enthusiastic about the potential for increased empowerment of the individual. Benjamin sees this through the reproduction of art reaching the masses described in the transition of art from ritual to politics. Benjamin argues that the fading of the “aura” had the potential to equalize both contact and stance toward culture. Halleck sees this empowerment through community media.
“Public access can be a local forum for grassroots expression and active participation. The activity of making programs can be, in itself, a beginning step in civic engagement. People who take advantage of public access often increase their interest in civic issues” (Halleck 391).
I believe a synthesis of Benjamin and Halleck’s arguments provides greater insight into the social implications of an information society. Using the essays together allowed me to overcome critiques of each individually. For example, our class thought Halleck’s essay discounted the value of simple entertainment derived from media. Benjamin meanwhile emphasizes the simple entertainment and enjoyment value of art.
“A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it. He enters into this work of art the way legend tells of the Chinese painter when he viewed his finished painting. In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art” (Boyle 692).
Either way, entertainment is derived from the art.
Our class also agreed that Benjamin didn’t do enough to address or offer up a solution to the bourgeois [ritual]-controlled media. This is where I see the benefits of a synthesis between Benjamin and Halleck’s works. In his essay, Benjamin hints at common ownership when discussing mechanical reproduction bringing art out of ritual and into politics. However, at that point in history, Benjamin perhaps couldn’t see the potential for alternative community-based models as provided by Halleck.
“The value of this sort of exchange is on many levels: creating communities of interest across borders, exchanging information that has global relevance, providing models for popular organizing, and providing inspiration for creative production…providing documentation of local programs and solutions across borders and regions” (Halleck 392).
In other words, giving control of the media back to the people as Benjamin desired. In essence, Halleck offers up a solution to Benjamin’s quandary. Community-media provides common rather than corporate and private ownership.
Works Cited
Ellis, Jessica. “What is the History of Film?” Wisegeek.com, Wisegeek. n.d. Web.
Halleck, Dee Dee. “The Uses of Community Media: A Global Survey.” Hand Held Visions. Boulder,
Colorado: MacBride Round Table, October 1997.
Walter, Benjamin. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Film Theory and Criticism.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
No comments:
Post a Comment