The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

In Walter Benjamin's article "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", he discusses his views on modern artistry and the ways in which he believes mechanical reproduction is killing the "aura" of art. He defines an aura as;

"We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be."

What he means by this is that he believes that an original viewing or idea of an art is the aura of the piece, but the reproduction of this idea loses its aura. For example, he explains that if you are gazing up at a mountain range, you are experiencing the aura of those mountains. But if you photograph them, and mass produce them for an audience, the picture lacks the aura, or the original feeling the artist felt when he photographed them.

While I do identify with what Benjamin is saying, I also think his argument has flaws. While perhaps what he perceives as the original aura is lost, he does not acknowledge that photographers and the like manipulate their art on purpose to create their own aura. A photographer who photographs that mountain is going to go home and manipulate that picture on many different light scales and dark room settings, to manipulate the photograph into an aura of its own, what he, the artist, wants viewers to see when they look at his art.

Mass production of art may not be exactly as the original, and in some artistry fields I feel like this could have the piece lose an aura, as some artists, such as painters and sculptors, created their original piece to be the piece that is viewed. But other artists, such as movie directors and photographers, created their art to be mass produced, and much of the art of their piece is found in the way they manipulate it for audiences. All art is up for interpretation from the audiences, even original paintings and sculptures can be "misunderstood" by audiences, so photographs and movie scenes being "misunderstood" is not a valid argument for loss of an aura. I believe that if the artist created a piece to be mass produced and manipulated, that its aura lies in the production, and is not lost. I believe an artist decides his own aura of his piece, and if he decides it should be a mass produced aura, I think that the art does retain its aura.

What is "Correct" Language?

"Correct" language is hard to determine. With English, it seems that "professional" language, such as the English Amy Tan uses in her speeches, not the "home" tongue Gloria Anzaldua uses, would be the "correct" form. But with a country made up of so many different areas and cultures, it is hard for a standard English to even be established among peers who live on opposite sides of the United States. Different cultures inside of America manipulate English and mesh it with other languages, creating something different from standard entirely. Is this not correct?

I believe that "correct" language depends entirely on the audience. Language changes with the audience, so as long as you are using the appropriate language for the setting, you are using language correctly. If you are in a room of 4 year olds using "professional" English, you will not get your point across. Language is a communicative tool. If there is only one correct way to use this language, it would be very hard to communicate with different age groups, social groups, and cultural groups.

Language is about communication. Correct language can only be determined from the setting. It is correct for Gloria to use Spanish words in a comfortable setting around her family and friends who could comprehend this language integration! In fact, manipulation of language in this way only helps advance language-- more words are added to the English every day borrowed from other languages! The ability to change and adapt language to different surroundings is what makes language such an important technology for society to grow and evolve.

What is Literacy?

Literacy means different things to different people. As demonstrated by the two essays we read, there are many different levels of literacy that go beyond just the definition of knowing how to read. Frederick Douglass was not yet literate when his slave owner showed him the alphabet. Even when he began to recognize words and comprehend simple ideas, he did not consider himself literature. When finally, he could read and comprehend, but also write in a way that was able to be comprehended, he considered himself literate. Many people can read, but if they cannot comprehend what they are reading and make a valid judgement, should they be considered literate? I think literacy is not only being able to read others work, but also to know how to communicate your own ideas into words. Writing is a big part of literacy, not just reading comprehension. Although I do not like the amount that technology has taken over the modern world, I do not believe that it is making our society less literate. If anything, technology is greatly improving literacy. The internet enables more people to have access to online texts that can engage them and interest them, and maybe for some people, their first reading comprehension will not occur until they find something on the Web. I myself have expanded my literacy through use of research and reading on the Web. I understand Siegal's point that if we are too consumed by technology we are not literate to what is surrounding us, and I qualify with his argument, because I do believe being literate of our real world surroundings is important, but I also see a lot of benefits with technology for third world countries to improve literacy in their countries.

What is a Text?

Although text is typically thought of as written or typed words, a text is anything that is intentionally created by someone to convey an idea. So paintings, chalk, graffiti, pictures, music, lyrics, and carvings are also considered text. Because text allows society to convey ideas, it enables advancement. Text allows us to grow and create. Technology is defined as anything that advances a society. I could argue that written text may be the greatest technology ever created.

Although I do feel strongly that written text, which allows us to preserve ideas and pass them along the wider audiences, oral text is also important. Before cultures even had written word, there was oral text. Stories in some cultures have been passed down for centuries. Oral text also allows us to easily identify the speakers motives during each specific speech. Unlike written text, which is written once for a broad audience and then replicated and distributed, oral text is specific to each instance in which the text is told. No two oral texts can ever be exactly identical. Oral texts can also move us in ways written words cannot. Speakers persona and speech structure can persuade audiences to do that which the speaker wants the audiences to do.

RHETORIC

Rhetoric, according to Aristotle, is persuasion. Rhetoric is a piece of formal writing-- however, not all formal writing is rhetoric. Novels, for example, are not considered rhetoric. Because novels are not written to persuade. Rhetoric is created with the intent to have an effect on it's audience. If there is no effect, than it is not rhetoric. Rhetoric ensures effect by observing all available means of persuasion, and then utilizing the most effective means, or combination of means, to illicit a response. Aristotle defined three methods, or persuasive appeals, he found most utilized in regards to rhetoric:

1. Logos; The appeal to reason
2. Pathos; The appeal to emotion
3. Ethos; The persuasive appeal of someone's character

Also according to Aristotle, there are three categories of Rhetoric:
1. Political
2. Forensic
3. Ceremonial Oratory of Display

Cicero further explained the ways in which rhetorical persuasion could be analyzed, and they are:

1. Invention
2. Arrangement
3. Elocution
4. Memory
5. Delivery

Lloyd F. Bitzer goes on to describe rhetorical situtions, which he believes is a characteristic of rhetoric that has gone undefined before his essay ____. A rhetorical situation is brought about by rhetorical discourse, which in turn is set on by a situation. If discourse is created, and a situation's reality is altered by this discourse, a rhetorical situation has taken place.

Prior to the discourse of a rhetorical situation, three factors are present:
1. Exigence
2. Audience
3. Constraints

Rhetorical Situations are meaningless without the second of these factors, which is audience. If rhetorical discourse is created, but never produces an effect, it is meaningless. Audience makes meaningful discourse "rhetorical". This audience is defined as anyone who is capable of being persuaded by the rhetorical discourse at hand.

Further explanations on Rhetorical Discourse can be found in Bitzer's article,The Rhetorical Situation, which can be found here!

The instance of rhetorical situation's has created a demand for professional analysis of rhetorical discourse. This professional analysis is conducted by Rhetorical Critics. Rhetorical Critics analyze rhetorical situations and the persuasion these situations sought, and the persuasions they inspired. This profession is fairly new, not yet a hundred years old, and fathered by a Rhetorical Critic know as Herbert Wilchelns, with the publication of his essay "The Literary Citicism of Oratory".