The Work of Art in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Article by Lisa Schindler 10C (Published 23.06.2024)

To an ever-increasing degree, the work reproduced becomes the reproduction of a work designed for reproducibility.

-

Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility, 1936

In 1936 Walter Benjamin’s "The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility" was completed and later published posthumously as a part of his Selected Writings. However, it is unquestionable that Benjamin’s work has never been as relevant as it is now. 

Walter Benjamin was a German philosopher, cultural critic and translator, who in his essay "The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility" discusses the shift of art’s value and societal role in the face of its mechanical reproducibility. While it is acknowledged that the work of art has always been reproducible, Benjamin also argues the difference in art’s position, brought forth by the possibility of its technological reproduction, as well as the threat of fascism in terms of its aestheticization of politics. 

The leading concept necessary to apply Benjamin’s writing to the modern context of AI, is that of the aura. The aura is what Walter Benjamin defines as the quality of art, linked intrinsically to the context in which it was created. In other words, the here and now of the work of art-its unique existence in a particular place. The presence of a work of art in a particular time and space is exactly what the replica is lacking, and by extension, what AI-created art is lacking. AI-generated art has no context in the same way that authentic art has. 

In the past, authenticity has been the leading criterion to determine both the cult and the exhibition value of art. Benjamin defines the authenticity of an art work as its very core, explaining how reproduction has always existed, but never posed much of a threat as it was clearly seen as forgery and still left the original with full authority. Technological reproduction, and by extension AI-generated art, on the other hand is something different entirely. For one, it is almost absolutely independent from the original work of art, but it also possesses the ability to show the viewer aspects priorly unseen through the original. For example, a photograph, or an AI generated reproduction may bring out certain aspects, which are only accessible through a lens, or other digital mediums. Additionally, what is highly relevant to artificial intelligence, is the ability of technological reproduction to place the work of art in situations that the original can not attain.

While this can be positive, allowing a wider range of people to experience art, these changed circumstances devalue the here and now of the artwork, in other words the authenticity; everything that is passed on from one person to another, from the origin of the artwork onwards. In connection to this, the entire historical testimony, the tradition, of the artwork ceases to be important, and so does the physical duration, which is no factor for reproductions no less AI.

Art generated by artificial intelligence has no aura and no authenticity according to Benjamin’s criteria. But what does this mean?

But as soon as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applied to artistic production, the whole social function of art is revolutionised. Instead of being founded on ritual, it is based on a different practice: politics.

To summarise, Benjamin argues that art being no longer based on the principle of ritual but rather on politics, meaning factors like its reproducibility, or today its compatibility with AI, become superior to art’s authentic value. This not only poses the threat of the work of art becoming the work designed for reproducibility, in modern context meaning that art may lose its value on grounds of losing its authority in face of AI generated art. 

Benjamin writes: 

The technological reproducibility of the artwork changes the relation of the masses to art. 

In the same way, we will be able to see a shift in the relationship of the masses to art today, a shift caused by the emergence of AI generated artwork. 

Walter Benjamin, who shared marxist views, and was interested greatly in the writings of Bertolt Brecht naturally observed the politicisation of art. The relevance here lies in how Benjamin portrays the politicisation of art, and in attachment, the aestheticization of politics in his work. While in modernity the politicisation of art is nothing new, and was a medium commonly utilised by the political left in his lifetime, Benjamin will switch this at the end of his essay to address the aestheticization of politics as a defining principle of fascism. This is demonstrated in things like the choreographed marches during the Third Reich, and the montaged aesthetic quality given to politics at this time. The aestheticization of politics turns politics (instead of art) into something auratic and thereby into an instrument of almost mystic domination, which is why Benjamin argues for the leftist politicisation of art, and against the aestheticization of politics. Presenting the discrepancy between two concepts that seem undeniably intertwined grants Benjamin’s writing increasing gravity. 

In connection, art generated by artificial intelligence may be viewed as an aestheticization of politics as well, the implication being that AI has the potential for a multitude of political uses, most linked to many moral questions. In that sense the focus on AI’s quality to create “art” or write a text, becomes closer to a euphemistic approach to distract from the immediate political implications, namely the use of AI in war.

In the 1930s the art of filmmaking was a completely new one and was as thus also discussed by Benjamin. He begins by separating the film from the work of art. It is argued that a film being the product of montage is at most an artistic performance but never a work of art. Furthermore, it is important to understand that Benjamin labels the performance of a film actor as a test performance, meaning that other than a stage actor a film actor is performing in front of professionals who can intervene at any given time, making it not unlike an athlete performing in an arena. However the performance of a film actor is an entirely unique one, as the actor performs not in front of an audience, but in front of an apparatus. The apparatus here being the film camera. Benjamin marks this as a test performance of the highest order: 

To accomplish it is to preserve one’s humanity in the face of the apparatus. 

To the time of its publication, the idea of entertainment or any artistic performance not being live, but recorded and then broadcasted at a later time was revolutionary. While this may not be the case anymore, the unmistakable parallel has to be that presently AI takes the role of the apparatus. It will become necessary for the artist to prove their humanity in face of AI, in the same way that Walter Benjamin argued it necessary for the film actor to prove theirs. Showing the shift in relationship between the work of art and the artist. In both cases the common factor is that what is created by the apparatus, is in no way a work of art. Furthermore, when looked at through this angle, it becomes clear that AI generated art is nothing more than a digitalised type of test performance as the creation of the artwork is in no way organic, rather being artificially made by a program whose role is to interfere in the process. Marking AI generated art as maybe the most obvious test performance, as it consists of nothing but montage. The point here being, that Benjamin labels the film as the antithesis of sculpture, sculpture being made literally from one piece of marble, reflecting the necessity of the Greeks to create eternal value in their art. A necessity, that in present day has ceased to exist, one of the reasons being the increasing reproducibility that Benjamin discusses so fervently. In the same way, AI-generated art may be labelled as the antithesis to aura, as it is lacking in the particular context of the work of art, including aspects of ritual and duration, that Benjamin argues to be so intrinsic to its very existence. Finally displaying how AI-generated art, in the context of Walter Benjamin’s writings, can hardly be labelled as such.