In this paper, Pater also touches upon “solipsism”, and the idea that the self is the only thing that can be associated with a reality. The individual in isolation is perhaps the closest one can get to reality, and his restrained thoughts and dreams are even more so. It is what we think and dream of in such solitary moments that brings us the closest to reality and ourselves. Every instance fills us with such fleeting thoughts during which a particular scene, a particular thought remains imprinted upon us, and yet implied there as only transitory. “Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end.”(Ibid. pp.1105). This is what probably keeps us going and as Pater observes, “to burn with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life” (Ibid. pp.1105). To this he adds that our failure sets in when we start forming habits, and conform to the stereotyped world. Thus alienating ourselves from the “real”, certain things around us seem somewhat clouded. However, Pater says that instruments of criticism may help us recognise things which otherwise would pass unnoticed by at times like these. “Philosophy is the microscope of thought.” as Victor Hugo had stated in his ‘Les Miserables’. And it is on this note that Pater starts to conclude his essay. Pater states that during our life on earth, we must seek to make good use of the time granted to us. He argues that some waste their time in apathy, while others seek to utilise this time realistically. For as Pater comments, our only chance lies in making good use of the time given to us, and thus experiencing moments which we would never have dreamt of; such as passions, ecstasy as well as sorrows. “Only be sure it is passion – that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness.” (Ibid. pp.1106) Pater carries on, for art is the highest form of consciousness one can ever reach, “for art comes to you professing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.” (Ibid. pp.1106)
In his essay “Culture and Anarchy”, Arnold too strives to reach at a definition of the real. Arnold’s most theoretically constructive phase is that of the early essays culminating in “Culture and Anarchy.” During this phase, he seeks to strike a balance between “Hebraic” moral consciousness and the “Hellenic” critical intelligence, but the dominant force within his own critical system is Hellenism. However, Arnold, in trying to define the real, does so by giving us an explanation of culture, trying to elucidate the idea of what culture really is, and why it is essential to us. One of the first things he speaks about in his essay is that many times seeking for the truth may be confounded with “curiosity”. Giving a definition of curiosity – “a desire after the things of the mind simply for their own sakes and for the pleasures of seeing them as they are” – Arnold tries to explain that having the desire to see things as they really are is a chief example of someone with a stabilised and regulated mind. Arnold adds that there is yet another view of culture, which should be understood. We sense the desire, he argues, to perfect the things around us, to better the world we live in. “Culture is then properly described not as having its origin in curiosity, but as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of perfection.” (Ibid. pp.45). Bishop Wilson’s words explain this perfectly: “To make reason and the will of God prevail!” Thus, culture, which believes in making reason and the will of God, prevail, believes in perfection, and is a study and pursuit for perfection. On reaching this view of culture, Arnold sustains that one is manifesting the “moral, social, and beneficent character of culture.” (Ibid. pp.46). Consequently, Arnold arrives at the conclusion that the moment we grasp this view of culture, then culture becomes manifest.
Arnold believes that Art is the sole device, which can get us closer to experiencing the divine, and this view of art lies mainly within poetry. He speaks of poetry as being our only salvation, thus assuming the stance of a prophet. His basic idea is that everyone should have a liberal education, so as to be capable of realising what and which is best mode to acquire. As Pater defined poetry as the only means of art that can come closest to the real, Arnold here is doing the same thing. He believes that poets like William Wordsworth were potentially superior to poets like Dryden or Pope. To Arnold’s estimate, poets like Surrey and Wyatt are not prominent poets, and are of no interest to him. Wordsworth is often called the poet of nature because in voicing his thoughts, he constantly makes references to nature. Maybe what Arnold wants to point out is that only through such natural things can one find the true meaning of culture and the only meaning to a ‘real’ life. He thinks the best poets are only the Classics, and he accords that statement only to a few writers, two of which are Homer and Shakespeare. He is also deeply worried by what he calls Philistinism. To give an example would be a person sitting in a dentist’s waiting room, with ample time on his hands, and instead of utilising that time by reading the newspaper or a book, he just stares. He is deeply concerned that contemporary culture might be developing into a moronic kind of culture, and that the essence of culture is being lost. Thus resulting in anarchy in society.
In his essay Arnold projects himself as if he knows things as they really are. He thinks that he knows that culture is, and gives a definition for it as well, but what I often find myself asking is: Are not things constantly changing and being changed? How can a person say that one should see things as they really are, if things change all the time? Arnold has a very Victorian kind of mind. He is hampered by the fact that what he believes should be the things that need to be brought out in certain poetry and prose. Certain phrases keep re-occurring over and over again in his essay, and this could mean that apart from trying to convince us, Arnold is also trying to convince himself. He often mentions for example that Religion and Culture are one thing, and that there is no real difference between them. Arnold also believes firmly that placing our trust in machinery will definitely prove the greatest mistake we have ever done. The modern world lives on machinery and to be honest I cannot see us living in a world where machinery has no part. However Arnold, demonises machinery and states that: “Faith in machinery is…our besetting danger” (Ibid. pp.49) As a contrast to this, Walter Benjamin exalts machinery and is sure of the fact that machinery can save art from itself.
In his ‘ Pieces Sur L’Art, ‘La Conquete del’ubliquite ‘ Paul Valery is of the opinion that the fine arts as we have come to know them from time immemorial are destined to differ from the arts being created today. For one thing our established fine arts have the imprint of the physical component all along their creation. This cannot be said of the making of contemporary art. The advent of the age of mechanical reproduction is destined to change; and indeed has already done so; the way we look at art itself and also bring changes to the very perception of what in our opinion may be defined as art. When Karl Marx set about the task of portraying the capitalistic mode of production he did so by exploiting vigorously the proletariat in such a way that working from the base to the very top of the superstructure he attached accepted practises. This in turn had an undeniable effect on the conditions of production, which affected directly art itself. As a result the politics of art in a Fascist sense was born.
Works of art, especially man-mad ones have always been reproducible, be it replicas by apprentices for the sake of grasping of the skills of art itself, be it by masters for the purpose of gain or by third parties just for the sake of gain. The concept of Mechanical reproduction however constitutes an innovation and has taken further the possibilities of reproducing works of art, which were initially constrained by technical difficulties. Greeks initially could only reproduce bronzes terra cotta and coins. Historically however with the introduction of new materials in the concept of a work of art, over time and at times in leaps and bounds, the reproduction of greater quantities became possible. This was mainly directed towards woodcut graphic art, which embraced engraving and etching.
The turn came about with the introduction of lithography, which gave printing itself a newer dimension, both in the production and supply of larger quantities of art as well as changing forms. This was however not to last, as only a few decades later the introduction of photography revolutionised the relation between art and its creator. It now became less personal, less intimate, essentially it became a relation between the eye and the lens. The relation between quantitative pictorial reproduction by the artist on his canvas as opposed to the eye looking through a lens bears no comparison. This was basically what promoted Paul Valery to comment that ‘Just as water, gas, and electricity are brought into our houses from far off to satisfy our needs in response to a minimal effort, so we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign’. The turn of 1900 brought in opposition two different manifestations – the reproduction of works of art and the art of the film – both have had far reaching repercussions.
Reproduction in larger quantities, be it through the medium of photography or phonograph record lacks presence in time and space. In a sense all reproductions can be termed as forgeries in that they ultimately lack the element of ‘ aura ‘, which only surrounds that which is truly original. This is best illustrated if the concept is also applied to natural objects as opposed to historical objects. The sight of grandiose mountains in the distance as well as a branch which provides you with shelter on hot summer afternoon ooze with aura in that they are unique. You can relate directly with them, they are real. Without doubt, reproductions as offered by picture magazines and newsreels differ from the image seen by the unarmed eye. It is in this sense that reproduced visual art tends to lose their ‘ aura’ their uniqueness. An original work of art, say a statue of Venus, was viewed as an object of veneration by the Greeks and later as an idol by clerics of the Middle Ages; still it did not lose its ‘aura’; its presence in time and space. However, as Walter Benjamin points out, nowhere are works of art best seen to assume a new function as when photograph and the film are amplified as the most serviceable exemplification of such function. It will come to no surprise to learn that the portrait was the medium that was at first most used as a subject in early photograph. This new medium sought a personal, even if reproduced, image of a loved one, absent or dead; thereby striving to retain a sense of ‘aura’. This did nothing to mitigate the nineteenth-century dispute as to the artistic value of painting versus photography, or indeed the question of whether photography is an art; while it was then soon the film theoreticians turn to ask the same question. As Walter Benjamin states, they missed the all-important issue of whether the very invention of photography had not transformed the entire nature of art.
Another aspect that brings together two opposing issues is that of the stage actor and the film actor. Both are in a sense presenting a work of art. However their interact differently with the viewer. Very often the stage actor can react to his audience during a performance. His presence on stage is real. This is not the case with the film actor. His actions are filmed, they are not real and the audience cannot inter-act with him. Most of his actions are typically cut scenes as presented by the lens, the camera that is manipulating him and how he should appear to the audience watching him. This in turn allows the audience to take the position of a critic, without experiencing any personal contact with the actor. We are told that for this reason the film actor does not give out any ‘aura’. ‘ Aura’ necessities a physical presence, as is that of the stage actor. Here again, this thought, albeit through negative aspects, was well portrayed by Luigi Pirandello when he states that ‘The film actor feels as if in exile – exiled not only from the stage but also from himself…The projector will play with his shadow before the public, and he himself must be content to play before the camera’. (Ibid. pp.223) This would illustrate why the stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role. The film actor very often is denied this opportunity.
Mechanical reproduction has also affected the social role of a work of art. Walter Benjamin illustrates this when he portrays examples aimed at best conveying the reaction of the masses towards art. He states that the ‘ greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public’. Painting in art galleries, as opposed to architecture always, epic poetry in the past and the movie today, can never hope to be viewed under the same personal and intimate experience as when it is viewed personally and not collectively. The painting on the other hand invites the spectator to contemplation; before it the spectator can abandon himself and inter-react with the still image before him. Before the movie frame he cannot do so. Scenes come and go giving the spectator little time for personal reflection. No wonder Duhamel states that: ‘I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.’(Ibid. pp.231) He goes on to say that: ‘Masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator’. (Ibid. pp.231) The film makes the cult value recede in 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.
Both Pater and Arnold have a similar view on art and how it should be perceived. They both believe in the notion of the ‘real’ as being best attained through art, mainly though poetry. However, Benjamin’s ideology, which holds that machinery can indeed save art from itself, dramatically opposes Pater and Arnold’s ideologies. Benjamin’s engagement with possessing this kind of mechanisation could bring into being a form of art, which would be counter aesthetics. For example he tried to give inspiration and individual genius a negative loading. Perhaps he does this because he wants to point out that an overweening concern with art can lead to dangerous politics, such as fascism, and in this as far as I am concerned, he might be right.
Bibliography
Walter Pater, The Renaissance (selections), The Oxford Anthology of English Literature, ed. Frank Kermode and John Hollander, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973)
Matthew Arnold, ‘Culture and Anarchy’, (extract), ed. and introd. J. Dover Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960)
Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Walter Pater, The Renaissance (selections), The Oxford Anthology of English Literature, ed. Frank Kermode and John Hollander, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 1100
Matthew Arnold, ‘Culture and Anarchy’, (extract), ed. and introd. J. Dover Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), pp 44
Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, pp. 211
