W. 벤야민의 <기술복제시대의 예술작품>에 대한 비판적 해석 (The Critical Interpretation of W. Benjamin’s )

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국해석학회
· 수록지 정보 : 해석학연구 / 22호 / 55 ~ 97페이지
· 저자명 : 박치완

초록

In these days, the technological reproducibility is a generalized appearance. The technological reproducibility always rises above utility and space of argument to ask ethical value, and the masses receive it without any reflection. It operates everywhere, frees from a limited range and a limited territory.
In this point, Benjamin’s <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Tec hnological Reproducibility> locates on the unconsciousness of contemp orary masses who are accustomed to the technological reproducibility. This article is a type to ours to consider problem of technological rep roducibility and an important object of elucidation. Because technolog ical reproducibility is a more exigent philosophical problem than ever before.
In <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibi lity>, Benjamin seeks to the change of traditional form of art and concept of art and shows the direction of future art. According to him, the movie will becomes the art of future, that is to say, the matrix of the social revolution that be formed by the masses. But we can ask the question as follow : do works of art the mass-reprodu ced, as like a photograph and a movie, etc., really contribute to the realization mass society? Is technological reproducibility the direct cause that presses the society to the danger rather than new power of the social revolution? If so, the contemporary works of art are produced and consumed out of the his theoretical range.
Indeed, these questions relate to our attitude that how can we accept contemporary technological reproducibility. It is not an analogical reproduction that prevailed in that age of Benjamin, but a digital reproduction. In the latter case, the originality and the Aura, that are regarded as important by Benjamin, aren’t essential concepts. Especially, of course in the real space and in the virtual space, the digital reproduction in contemporary meaning is produced and disappeared. Frankly speaking, a mass of the information that is consisted of bits is the form of digital picture. In digital picture, each bit is meaningless, but if bits are constructed to an information, then it has a meaning.
Fundamentally, the digital picture was born of manipulation of bits, by reason of this, we don’t demand the authority as the work of art or the Aura that Benjamin said. And the value of digital picture appears by the interaction of circulator and the user’s positive reaction. Strictly speaking, the value of contemporary work of art is determined by the number of visitors rather than originality and unique value as the work of the art. And that Aura is nothing but information that attracts visitors. That is why V. Flusser emphasizes the finger’s clapping on the keyboard rather than the faculty of hand or eye.
On the Flusser’s position, we can confirm that the Benjamin’s thesis - a work of art can reproduce with complete fidelity - is an unreasonable request. We can’t approve that Benjamin’s Technische Reproduzierbarkeit has digital’s meaning. Because it’s too exaggerated. His <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility> is a elucidation on his own purpose. That’s why we consult Flusser’s opinion, then we make a difference between the analogical picture and the digital picture and then judge that Flusser’s position is more real and persuasive than Benjamin’s position.
If we admit that the masses aggravate the alienation rather than enjoy mind-decentralized entertainment by many technological images, then the possibility of technological reproducibility is not essence of creation of a work of art but just a legacy of homo faber. Because the art always resists the possibility of reproduction.

영어초록

In these days, the technological reproducibility is a generalized appearance. The technological reproducibility always rises above utility and space of argument to ask ethical value, and the masses receive it without any reflection. It operates everywhere, frees from a limited range and a limited territory.
In this point, Benjamin’s <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Tec hnological Reproducibility> locates on the unconsciousness of contemp orary masses who are accustomed to the technological reproducibility. This article is a type to ours to consider problem of technological rep roducibility and an important object of elucidation. Because technolog ical reproducibility is a more exigent philosophical problem than ever before.
In <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibi lity>, Benjamin seeks to the change of traditional form of art and concept of art and shows the direction of future art. According to him, the movie will becomes the art of future, that is to say, the matrix of the social revolution that be formed by the masses. But we can ask the question as follow : do works of art the mass-reprodu ced, as like a photograph and a movie, etc., really contribute to the realization mass society? Is technological reproducibility the direct cause that presses the society to the danger rather than new power of the social revolution? If so, the contemporary works of art are produced and consumed out of the his theoretical range.
Indeed, these questions relate to our attitude that how can we accept contemporary technological reproducibility. It is not an analogical reproduction that prevailed in that age of Benjamin, but a digital reproduction. In the latter case, the originality and the Aura, that are regarded as important by Benjamin, aren’t essential concepts. Especially, of course in the real space and in the virtual space, the digital reproduction in contemporary meaning is produced and disappeared. Frankly speaking, a mass of the information that is consisted of bits is the form of digital picture. In digital picture, each bit is meaningless, but if bits are constructed to an information, then it has a meaning.
Fundamentally, the digital picture was born of manipulation of bits, by reason of this, we don’t demand the authority as the work of art or the Aura that Benjamin said. And the value of digital picture appears by the interaction of circulator and the user’s positive reaction. Strictly speaking, the value of contemporary work of art is determined by the number of visitors rather than originality and unique value as the work of the art. And that Aura is nothing but information that attracts visitors. That is why V. Flusser emphasizes the finger’s clapping on the keyboard rather than the faculty of hand or eye.
On the Flusser’s position, we can confirm that the Benjamin’s thesis - a work of art can reproduce with complete fidelity - is an unreasonable request. We can’t approve that Benjamin’s Technische Reproduzierbarkeit has digital’s meaning. Because it’s too exaggerated. His <The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility> is a elucidation on his own purpose. That’s why we consult Flusser’s opinion, then we make a difference between the analogical picture and the digital picture and then judge that Flusser’s position is more real and persuasive than Benjamin’s position.
If we admit that the masses aggravate the alienation rather than enjoy mind-decentralized entertainment by many technological images, then the possibility of technological reproducibility is not essence of creation of a work of art but just a legacy of homo faber. Because the art always resists the possibility of reproduction.

참고자료

· 없음