The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

“However, theses about the art of the proletariat after its assumption of power or about the art of a classless society would have less bearing on these demands than theses about the developmental tendencies of art under present conditions of production. Their dialectic is no less notable in the superstructure than in the economy. It would therefore be wrong to underestimate the value of such theses as a weapon.”

Benjamin introduces the essay’s central claim with a bold statement about why he is choosing to analyze Technology and Artistic Production. While Marx predicts what art will be like in a “classless society,” e.g., after Communism has succeeded, Benjamin wants to apply Marxist dialectics to “present conditions of production.” He describes this mode of analysis as “a weapon” against Fascism, foreshadowing his argument about Art as a Political Form.

“The concepts which are introduced into the theory of art in what follows differ from more familiar terms in that they are completely useless for the purposes of Fascism. They are, on the other hand, useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art.”

In the Preface, Benjamin lays out traditional modes of artistic analysis. He sweeps these aside to say that he will be laying out new “concepts” of the theory of art, because the old theories lent themselves to Fascist ideas. This is an instance of Benjamin using contrast, in this case between old concepts and the new ones he is proposing, to make his argument.

“In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and finally, by third parties in pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new.”

Benjamin uses a brief exposition of the history of artistic reproduction to draw a distinction between prior forms and the new ones. He wants to highlight the novelty of the new technologies of photography and film while acknowledging in advance the possible critique that “in principle a work of art has always been reproducible.