dissertation to date
...
Art and Mechanical Reproduction - The Authenticity of Printmaking.
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element : its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” (Benjamin)
I have chosen to write this essay for many reasons, firstly I want to understand the ideas explored in the essay ‘Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, and furthermore understand how these ideas may or may not be relevant today and how they apply to me as a print maker in a contemporary art environment. I also hope that my researching this essay I will be lead to find other sources which may also help me shape my own practice. I plan to do this by studying the writings of artists and critics that relate to this especially in the context of printmaking, this way I hope to grasp how the ideas from in this essay (originally written in the 1930’s) are interpreted today in today’s art climate, whether they stand true or wether they are discarded in favour of more contemporary ideas in a more post modern art enviroment.
Secondly I wish to learn more about ideas that exist in the contemporary fine art world about printmaking. I want to learn about how and why print is chosen over other mediums and whether because a work is printed it is viewed differently by critics and artists and also the viewing public. I am especially interested in the viewers ideas of authenticity and originality, because in referance to print this is a question that has been raised for a very many years and continues to be source of debate; whether you can have an original or authentic print when in its very nature printmaking holds potential to produce any number of identical copies, and also the fact that most artists prints are infact printed in a workshop by a team of craftsmen which thus raises questions further more of authenticity. I also want to explore the idea of an edition because this is often how a series of prints are released although rarely shown. I want to understand especially in referance to Benjamins essay notions of an edition, and I feel this links almost completely with ideas of authenticity and originality as I have previously mentioned
My reason for raising the questions and wanting to explore these areas is that I am a fine art printmaker and I feel that by researching these areas I will be able to further shape my own practice and develop my ideas and opinions about the medium I am using, and thus I will be able to produce work that I feel is more successful as a print, aswell as a successful piece of artwork.
In Walter Benjamin’s essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ (originally published in 1936) he argues that a mechanical reproduction of a work of art, or a work of art which exists in many places at once (e.g. an edition of prints or photographs) does not have the ‘aura’ of an original work of art. He argues that a work of arts authenticity has its roots and basis in the ritual of its production, and thus by making mechanical reproductions there is no original or authentic work of art, and
thus the aura is lost.
When describing ‘aura’ Benjamin describes it as viewing a mountain from a distance and then comparing that to viewing a photograph in a magazine. The real thing has the aura, the experience of viewing an authentic thing, and then saying that the reproduction of the original has not. This makes sense in its entirety within this context however in an arts context it is different. In an arts context the work of art would be the photograph, which is a medium deigned to be mechanically reproduced; it is in its very essence to be reproducable.
Benjamin addresses this issue by first describing the origin of ‘aura’, he states that art was originally created by ritual, magical, the religious. And that the existence of a work of art is never separated from its ritual function. “In other words, the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic basis, however remote, is still recognizable as secularized ritual even in the most profane forms of the cult of beauty.” He then describes how during the renaissance the secular cult of beauty showed this ritualistic basis to be in decline.
He goes on to say that the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult and ritual. And when it did “the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever.” Meaning that now that a work of art could be mechanically reproduced and presented differently the work of art could be taken out of context and made more accessable too easily. The authenticity of experiencing a work of art in the location and in the context and under the circumstances that it was to be experienced in could be bypassed and the mechanically reproduced work could be viewed more on the viewers terms than the artists. This would thus be an example of the loss of aura because the experience of viewing the art is not authentic, its context has been changed. A contemporary example would be seeing Da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa’ in a book or magazine compared to seeing it in the Louvre.
However Benjamin makes no mention that the mechanical reproduction does not ever claim to be authentic. In this example the painting would be photographed and put into a book as a substitute for someone who wanted to see the work but could not get to it in its location for the authentic experience of viewing it, and experiencing its ‘aura’. It is taken for granted by people viewing these mechanical reproductions that looking at the image is not the same as seeing the real thing. Benjamin does however say that this does not apply to forgeries because in that circumstance the original maintains its authority and the copy is branded as a forgery.
Richard Hamilton was is an artist who has worked in a wide range of mediums, including printmaking. His work has covered many broad subjects as has his writings. In a body of writing titled ‘Introduction to Printmaking’ written in 1984 Hamilton discusses this essay by Benjamin, he acknowledges what Benjamin says about the difference between exclusive works and replicas, exclusive works being one offs and replicas being mechanical reproductions, and the repercussions of this concept on political and social change but points out that Benjamin does not explain how people who work in this field manage to “endow the plural object with the aura he [Benjamin] denies it.” By which he means that prints, even though they are multiple and identical have an aura as valid as any one off. And that this aura is given to the work by the craftsmen that produce the prints. Hamilton is endorsing the fact that prints can be just as authorative and valid as any one off work of art. This to me is a celebration of printmaking and the fact that a plural work can be as powerful as a single work.
I believe the reason for this is in the medium. Printmaking is a medium that produces multiples and thus I feel that they are endowed with an aura that although is different to the aura of say a painting or sculpture is equally as valid. The reason they are different is in the nature and product of the process. Through the process of printmaking a whole different set of possibilities are opened up to the artist conceptually as well as visually. Using the process the artist can produce identical multiples that are each as valid as the other as a work of art. Perhaps it would be better to consider the edition the work as opposed to a single print from the edition. The product of the process is the edition, in the same way that the product of the process of painting is a painting. The only difference being that an edition of prints can be separated and exist simultaneously in many places yet still retaining the same authority as a single work of art, whereas a painting or other single original work of art can only exist in one place without some form of mechanical reproduction to put it in a different situation as Benjamin describes, meeting the viewer on his own terms.
It is because Printmaking lends itself to the production of multiple identical copies that the idea of an edition has arisen. An edition of prints is a specific number of chosen by the artist that are identical. Each is numbered and signed and then exhibited or sold. Although this process produces multiple original works of art, artists, collectors and dealers support the notion that an edition should not be indefinate. The artist will choose the number of prints in an edition to control the value of the prints, a limited run of 10 for example will be more exclusive and sought after and thus more expensive than an edition of say 100. This choice of edition size in some ways can be refered to in Benjamins terms. In the 10 print edition each print has more exclusivity than a print in the 100 print edition. And thus a work from the smaller run will hold more authority as a piece and more cultural value entirely because less of them exist. This would appear to indicate then that exclusivity is craved by the art market. It is more desirable to own a print from a small run than a large run because there are less of them and thus are more exclusive. This is why printmaking is referred to as the ‘Democratic’ medium. The artist has a choice of how accessable his work is and how much cultural value each print from an edition will hold. Some artists may reject the idea of exclusivity and deliberately choose to produce enormous editions for a conceptual purpose, or a political purpose, rejecting the values of the art market. An indefinate edition would make a mockery of the art market and notions of originality and authenticity. Wheras others will make a very limited run because they want their work to hold higher value so they produce less to maintain cultural value for each print. These choices apply to every artist working in printmaking, and whatever they choose will effect the work in some and how it is perceived.
Benjamin argues, “The presence of and original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” In printmaking most processes are based upon mechanical reproduction, producing many copies of a single image many times from which either a single one would be selected and presented or the work would be released as an edition, except in the event of a mono-print where the techniques are used to produce a single unrepeatable work.
In an edition of for example 100 prints there is no original, singular authentic work there are 100, all the prints would be identical except as is in most cases they would be numbered. In Benjamin’s eyes would this mean therefore that a series of prints was not an authentic work. Because there is no specific original would the work not be authentic.
This mechanical reproduction involved in printing is often what draws artists to it, it opens up many possibilities of concept that are inaccessible in other mediums. One example of this would be Andy Warhol producing large editions of prints in his factory as a reaction to mass consumerism culture and mass media. Two of the main aspects of the Pop art movement. Benjamin’s argument would thus be that none of the Warhol prints were authentic originals. They would all be mechanical reproductions of something that is essence didn’t exist, a single original work. Also the fact that many of the works were not touched by the artist’s hands but instead produced by a team of assistants would also detract in Benjamin’s mind from the authenticity of the work. Would the artist be the assistant who actually did the production or Andy Warhol who devised the concept and the aesthetic.
Another possible statement could be that the print numbered 1 in the edition would be the original and every print thereafter would be a reproduction of that first one. Although this obviously was not the case because every print from an edition held the same cultural and financial value. An example of this would be Flowers 1964 (no6) by Any Warhol. A large professionally printed edition of prints all identical, mass produced and conceptually the antithesis of the art market, inexpensive and readily available. He used the technique to make almost perfectly democratic art, which is a label given to printmaking because of the fact that the works can be mass produced and made readily available to the masses with ease, unlike painting or sculpture where the work has a much higher price and the actual work can only be seen in a gallery or private collection.
Warhol however takes these concepts one step further by as well as producing editions of identical prints, producing series of prints which contain variations. This throws the concept of an edition back into confusion because within the series all the works are different. The main method he would use to do this would be to print onto different coloured painted canvases. This way he is showing the viewer the differences between how a print can be reproduced time and time again and be identical yet can be used with other processes i.e painting and produce a series of prints which are not identical but contain the same element. One example of this is the Mao series produced from 1972 till 1974 which is a series of prints in groups of various sizes, where the face of Mao is printed in black onto canvases that have each been painted in various colour schemes, even the ones that use a similar colour range are all painted differently, Warhol does not claim they are an edition though each image aswell as having the same name is obviously identifiable with each other one in the series because the printed images came from the same screen and thus same source. In my opinion they could still be described as an edition of prints although it stretches the definition, because they are not all identical.
Benjamin could say about these either that they were each authentic original works of art because they were all different and unique or he could say that they were not because so much of the image was a mechanical reproduction. Repeated over various backgrounds.
Another form of mechanical reproduction in Warhol’s work is that he uses the same image many times in different situations, for example his portraits of Marylin Monroe appear at various times, from 1962 till 1967 in a similar context to the afore mentioned Mao images and then again in 1979 in Black on Black Reversal and Big Retrospective Painting (Reversal Series). And also in Eighteen Multicoloured Marylins (Reversal Series) 1979-1986. Here he is using the same image at various points in his career and for various reasons but it is still a mechanical reproduction of a single image though treated differently through various works.
Another artist who has done something similar by mechanically reproducing an image many times in various works is Richard Hamilton, in 1967 he mechanically produced I’m dreaming of a white Christmas which started off a exploration of a single film negative from the film ‘Holiday Inn’. From this negative came successive works I’m dreaming of a white Christmas in 1969 and I’m dreaming of a black Christmas 1971. This exploration asks questions about mechanical reproduction because he has appropriated an image from a film and reproduced it on numerous occasions to create various works using various mechanical processes. Its almost as if it was an experiment or exercise in process and technique.
Warhol is also useful for critiquing Benjamin when Benjamin says that a mechanically produced work of art has lost the ritual of production.
By ritual of production Benjamin means the act of producing a work, the preparation to make one original piece which he says was originally based on religion or magic and was ritualistic because it was produced for a specific purpose, and that it is lost in mechanical reproduction because the piece can be reproduced using technique alone by anyone with the technical knowledge. I feel that this ritual is not lost but instead has evolved with mechanincal reproduction. Within the example of screen printing and Warhol, the ritual would be the decision making involved within his factory with his assistants and then telling them what to do and leaving them to do it. This is just as valid a ritual of production, but bought into a new conceptual framework. The mass production and consumer product references add to it again more and give it more authority.
I feel this shows that the ritual has not been lost through mechanical reproduction but instead changed. The ritual of production in any process depends entirely upon the process, the essence of ritual is relative to who ever is producing the work, I’d imagine it would be impossible to produce any piece of artwork without some kind of ritual during the production. From contemporary painters painting in a studio to internet artists studying and writing code and then uploading their work to the internet.
Also the reason for the production of art has changed, art now exists for completely different reasons, art can now exist to make statements socially or politically or even just to make comments on art itself.
In my own practice, which is screen printing digitally prepared images, I would say that the ritual exists in many places. Firstly would be the preparation of images using computer programmes using a pre arranged set of rules which is stuck by rigorously. Using a direct linear process to edit an appropriated image and then separating the colours into 4 channels, (cyan, magenta, yellow and black). Secondly the ritual would involve the act of printing the four channels each on a separate screen on top of the other in again a set order, cyan followed by yellow followed by magenta followed by black. This ritual is very involving because of the exact and definitive rules around which I work. Although the image changes with each edition of prints the rules stay in place and for conceptual reasons must be so. I feel that this is a valid form of ritual in production of an artwork which itself is based on mechanical reproduction.
Benjamin later goes on to say that “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.” Which he says leads to a “tremendous shattering of tradition”. To some extent I agree with this statement, given that this essay was first published in 1936, at the time I can see how an edition of multiple reproductions of a single work as high brow art would have been a move away from tradition. Although Duchamp had already raised the idea of multiples by producing three versions of ‘The Bicycle Wheel in 1913. Duchamp was an artist who was constantly moving away from tradition and rejecting standard art practises. His fountain is prime example, a readymade, a simple mass-mechanically produced object. The same as any other produced on the same factory line except for being signed by the artist (however signed R Mutt). This taking of a mundane mechanical reproduction and labelling it art caused uproar at the time but has since been heralded as a very important piece of art and a turning point, as Benjamin said shattering traditions. Duchamp continued to produce works that shattered tradtions, one example being his Boite-en-valise (portable museum) which he produced to contain “approximately all the things I produced” (p175). From 1935 to 1940 he collected photographs of his works to be included in what eventually became a box (so he could include scaled down reproductions of some of his ready-mades). This form of mechanical reproduction, produced in an edition of 300 is interesting because it contains mechanically reproduced representations of original and unique works of art (of which some were ready-mades already). These reproductions in this box as a whole became the work itself and was then reproduced mechanically in an edition. If taken into the context of Benjamins essay there are many lines to be drawn. Duchamp is intentionally taking reproductions of his art to the viewer, making them more acsessable for the viewer, the objects can be viewed on his or her terms, as Benjamin said would happen with mechanical reproductions. Although this was what Duchamp intended. Also the aura of viewing the original works in the context they were intended for is lost because the viewer would simply be experiencing black and white photographs of the works included, or scaled down reproductions of a few 3d objects. However these reproductions aren’t simply reproductions, they are reproductions that form a work of art in itself, this concept throws up many questions, especially along the lines of originality and what is an authentic work of art. It would be as if Damien Hirst took photographs of all his works to date and published them in a book and called it a work of art unto itself.
Similarities can be drawn here between Duchamps Boite-en-valise and Andy Warhol’s Big Retrospective Painting (Reversal Series) Both artists have mechanically reproduced some of there former work to produce a new work which is in its own right a new fresh work of art though contains only reproductions of existing works. Benjamin may say that these works are not original works of art but reproductions, however he may also argue that they are original in their own right because they take the original work and put it in a different context so the collected reproductions become a piece that is not just a mechanical reproduction because the context has changed. However he may say that these new works containing reproductions of old works are only original authentic works if they are produced only once as a one off. Which is not the case with Duchamps box. I find this re-using of already used imagery interesting because as a result the artists can comment on there own work, or make references to how things have changed either for them as an artist or how whatever there reason for making their art has changed.
“printmakers have nothing to say but ten different ways of saying it’ anon
In conclusion…………
Art and Mechanical Reproduction - The Authenticity of Printmaking.
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element : its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” (Benjamin)
I have chosen to write this essay for many reasons, firstly I want to understand the ideas explored in the essay ‘Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, and furthermore understand how these ideas may or may not be relevant today and how they apply to me as a print maker in a contemporary art environment. I also hope that my researching this essay I will be lead to find other sources which may also help me shape my own practice. I plan to do this by studying the writings of artists and critics that relate to this especially in the context of printmaking, this way I hope to grasp how the ideas from in this essay (originally written in the 1930’s) are interpreted today in today’s art climate, whether they stand true or wether they are discarded in favour of more contemporary ideas in a more post modern art enviroment.
Secondly I wish to learn more about ideas that exist in the contemporary fine art world about printmaking. I want to learn about how and why print is chosen over other mediums and whether because a work is printed it is viewed differently by critics and artists and also the viewing public. I am especially interested in the viewers ideas of authenticity and originality, because in referance to print this is a question that has been raised for a very many years and continues to be source of debate; whether you can have an original or authentic print when in its very nature printmaking holds potential to produce any number of identical copies, and also the fact that most artists prints are infact printed in a workshop by a team of craftsmen which thus raises questions further more of authenticity. I also want to explore the idea of an edition because this is often how a series of prints are released although rarely shown. I want to understand especially in referance to Benjamins essay notions of an edition, and I feel this links almost completely with ideas of authenticity and originality as I have previously mentioned
My reason for raising the questions and wanting to explore these areas is that I am a fine art printmaker and I feel that by researching these areas I will be able to further shape my own practice and develop my ideas and opinions about the medium I am using, and thus I will be able to produce work that I feel is more successful as a print, aswell as a successful piece of artwork.
In Walter Benjamin’s essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ (originally published in 1936) he argues that a mechanical reproduction of a work of art, or a work of art which exists in many places at once (e.g. an edition of prints or photographs) does not have the ‘aura’ of an original work of art. He argues that a work of arts authenticity has its roots and basis in the ritual of its production, and thus by making mechanical reproductions there is no original or authentic work of art, and
thus the aura is lost.
When describing ‘aura’ Benjamin describes it as viewing a mountain from a distance and then comparing that to viewing a photograph in a magazine. The real thing has the aura, the experience of viewing an authentic thing, and then saying that the reproduction of the original has not. This makes sense in its entirety within this context however in an arts context it is different. In an arts context the work of art would be the photograph, which is a medium deigned to be mechanically reproduced; it is in its very essence to be reproducable.
Benjamin addresses this issue by first describing the origin of ‘aura’, he states that art was originally created by ritual, magical, the religious. And that the existence of a work of art is never separated from its ritual function. “In other words, the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic basis, however remote, is still recognizable as secularized ritual even in the most profane forms of the cult of beauty.” He then describes how during the renaissance the secular cult of beauty showed this ritualistic basis to be in decline.
He goes on to say that the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult and ritual. And when it did “the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever.” Meaning that now that a work of art could be mechanically reproduced and presented differently the work of art could be taken out of context and made more accessable too easily. The authenticity of experiencing a work of art in the location and in the context and under the circumstances that it was to be experienced in could be bypassed and the mechanically reproduced work could be viewed more on the viewers terms than the artists. This would thus be an example of the loss of aura because the experience of viewing the art is not authentic, its context has been changed. A contemporary example would be seeing Da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa’ in a book or magazine compared to seeing it in the Louvre.
However Benjamin makes no mention that the mechanical reproduction does not ever claim to be authentic. In this example the painting would be photographed and put into a book as a substitute for someone who wanted to see the work but could not get to it in its location for the authentic experience of viewing it, and experiencing its ‘aura’. It is taken for granted by people viewing these mechanical reproductions that looking at the image is not the same as seeing the real thing. Benjamin does however say that this does not apply to forgeries because in that circumstance the original maintains its authority and the copy is branded as a forgery.
Richard Hamilton was is an artist who has worked in a wide range of mediums, including printmaking. His work has covered many broad subjects as has his writings. In a body of writing titled ‘Introduction to Printmaking’ written in 1984 Hamilton discusses this essay by Benjamin, he acknowledges what Benjamin says about the difference between exclusive works and replicas, exclusive works being one offs and replicas being mechanical reproductions, and the repercussions of this concept on political and social change but points out that Benjamin does not explain how people who work in this field manage to “endow the plural object with the aura he [Benjamin] denies it.” By which he means that prints, even though they are multiple and identical have an aura as valid as any one off. And that this aura is given to the work by the craftsmen that produce the prints. Hamilton is endorsing the fact that prints can be just as authorative and valid as any one off work of art. This to me is a celebration of printmaking and the fact that a plural work can be as powerful as a single work.
I believe the reason for this is in the medium. Printmaking is a medium that produces multiples and thus I feel that they are endowed with an aura that although is different to the aura of say a painting or sculpture is equally as valid. The reason they are different is in the nature and product of the process. Through the process of printmaking a whole different set of possibilities are opened up to the artist conceptually as well as visually. Using the process the artist can produce identical multiples that are each as valid as the other as a work of art. Perhaps it would be better to consider the edition the work as opposed to a single print from the edition. The product of the process is the edition, in the same way that the product of the process of painting is a painting. The only difference being that an edition of prints can be separated and exist simultaneously in many places yet still retaining the same authority as a single work of art, whereas a painting or other single original work of art can only exist in one place without some form of mechanical reproduction to put it in a different situation as Benjamin describes, meeting the viewer on his own terms.
It is because Printmaking lends itself to the production of multiple identical copies that the idea of an edition has arisen. An edition of prints is a specific number of chosen by the artist that are identical. Each is numbered and signed and then exhibited or sold. Although this process produces multiple original works of art, artists, collectors and dealers support the notion that an edition should not be indefinate. The artist will choose the number of prints in an edition to control the value of the prints, a limited run of 10 for example will be more exclusive and sought after and thus more expensive than an edition of say 100. This choice of edition size in some ways can be refered to in Benjamins terms. In the 10 print edition each print has more exclusivity than a print in the 100 print edition. And thus a work from the smaller run will hold more authority as a piece and more cultural value entirely because less of them exist. This would appear to indicate then that exclusivity is craved by the art market. It is more desirable to own a print from a small run than a large run because there are less of them and thus are more exclusive. This is why printmaking is referred to as the ‘Democratic’ medium. The artist has a choice of how accessable his work is and how much cultural value each print from an edition will hold. Some artists may reject the idea of exclusivity and deliberately choose to produce enormous editions for a conceptual purpose, or a political purpose, rejecting the values of the art market. An indefinate edition would make a mockery of the art market and notions of originality and authenticity. Wheras others will make a very limited run because they want their work to hold higher value so they produce less to maintain cultural value for each print. These choices apply to every artist working in printmaking, and whatever they choose will effect the work in some and how it is perceived.
Benjamin argues, “The presence of and original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” In printmaking most processes are based upon mechanical reproduction, producing many copies of a single image many times from which either a single one would be selected and presented or the work would be released as an edition, except in the event of a mono-print where the techniques are used to produce a single unrepeatable work.
In an edition of for example 100 prints there is no original, singular authentic work there are 100, all the prints would be identical except as is in most cases they would be numbered. In Benjamin’s eyes would this mean therefore that a series of prints was not an authentic work. Because there is no specific original would the work not be authentic.
This mechanical reproduction involved in printing is often what draws artists to it, it opens up many possibilities of concept that are inaccessible in other mediums. One example of this would be Andy Warhol producing large editions of prints in his factory as a reaction to mass consumerism culture and mass media. Two of the main aspects of the Pop art movement. Benjamin’s argument would thus be that none of the Warhol prints were authentic originals. They would all be mechanical reproductions of something that is essence didn’t exist, a single original work. Also the fact that many of the works were not touched by the artist’s hands but instead produced by a team of assistants would also detract in Benjamin’s mind from the authenticity of the work. Would the artist be the assistant who actually did the production or Andy Warhol who devised the concept and the aesthetic.
Another possible statement could be that the print numbered 1 in the edition would be the original and every print thereafter would be a reproduction of that first one. Although this obviously was not the case because every print from an edition held the same cultural and financial value. An example of this would be Flowers 1964 (no6) by Any Warhol. A large professionally printed edition of prints all identical, mass produced and conceptually the antithesis of the art market, inexpensive and readily available. He used the technique to make almost perfectly democratic art, which is a label given to printmaking because of the fact that the works can be mass produced and made readily available to the masses with ease, unlike painting or sculpture where the work has a much higher price and the actual work can only be seen in a gallery or private collection.
Warhol however takes these concepts one step further by as well as producing editions of identical prints, producing series of prints which contain variations. This throws the concept of an edition back into confusion because within the series all the works are different. The main method he would use to do this would be to print onto different coloured painted canvases. This way he is showing the viewer the differences between how a print can be reproduced time and time again and be identical yet can be used with other processes i.e painting and produce a series of prints which are not identical but contain the same element. One example of this is the Mao series produced from 1972 till 1974 which is a series of prints in groups of various sizes, where the face of Mao is printed in black onto canvases that have each been painted in various colour schemes, even the ones that use a similar colour range are all painted differently, Warhol does not claim they are an edition though each image aswell as having the same name is obviously identifiable with each other one in the series because the printed images came from the same screen and thus same source. In my opinion they could still be described as an edition of prints although it stretches the definition, because they are not all identical.
Benjamin could say about these either that they were each authentic original works of art because they were all different and unique or he could say that they were not because so much of the image was a mechanical reproduction. Repeated over various backgrounds.
Another form of mechanical reproduction in Warhol’s work is that he uses the same image many times in different situations, for example his portraits of Marylin Monroe appear at various times, from 1962 till 1967 in a similar context to the afore mentioned Mao images and then again in 1979 in Black on Black Reversal and Big Retrospective Painting (Reversal Series). And also in Eighteen Multicoloured Marylins (Reversal Series) 1979-1986. Here he is using the same image at various points in his career and for various reasons but it is still a mechanical reproduction of a single image though treated differently through various works.
Another artist who has done something similar by mechanically reproducing an image many times in various works is Richard Hamilton, in 1967 he mechanically produced I’m dreaming of a white Christmas which started off a exploration of a single film negative from the film ‘Holiday Inn’. From this negative came successive works I’m dreaming of a white Christmas in 1969 and I’m dreaming of a black Christmas 1971. This exploration asks questions about mechanical reproduction because he has appropriated an image from a film and reproduced it on numerous occasions to create various works using various mechanical processes. Its almost as if it was an experiment or exercise in process and technique.
Warhol is also useful for critiquing Benjamin when Benjamin says that a mechanically produced work of art has lost the ritual of production.
By ritual of production Benjamin means the act of producing a work, the preparation to make one original piece which he says was originally based on religion or magic and was ritualistic because it was produced for a specific purpose, and that it is lost in mechanical reproduction because the piece can be reproduced using technique alone by anyone with the technical knowledge. I feel that this ritual is not lost but instead has evolved with mechanincal reproduction. Within the example of screen printing and Warhol, the ritual would be the decision making involved within his factory with his assistants and then telling them what to do and leaving them to do it. This is just as valid a ritual of production, but bought into a new conceptual framework. The mass production and consumer product references add to it again more and give it more authority.
I feel this shows that the ritual has not been lost through mechanical reproduction but instead changed. The ritual of production in any process depends entirely upon the process, the essence of ritual is relative to who ever is producing the work, I’d imagine it would be impossible to produce any piece of artwork without some kind of ritual during the production. From contemporary painters painting in a studio to internet artists studying and writing code and then uploading their work to the internet.
Also the reason for the production of art has changed, art now exists for completely different reasons, art can now exist to make statements socially or politically or even just to make comments on art itself.
In my own practice, which is screen printing digitally prepared images, I would say that the ritual exists in many places. Firstly would be the preparation of images using computer programmes using a pre arranged set of rules which is stuck by rigorously. Using a direct linear process to edit an appropriated image and then separating the colours into 4 channels, (cyan, magenta, yellow and black). Secondly the ritual would involve the act of printing the four channels each on a separate screen on top of the other in again a set order, cyan followed by yellow followed by magenta followed by black. This ritual is very involving because of the exact and definitive rules around which I work. Although the image changes with each edition of prints the rules stay in place and for conceptual reasons must be so. I feel that this is a valid form of ritual in production of an artwork which itself is based on mechanical reproduction.
Benjamin later goes on to say that “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.” Which he says leads to a “tremendous shattering of tradition”. To some extent I agree with this statement, given that this essay was first published in 1936, at the time I can see how an edition of multiple reproductions of a single work as high brow art would have been a move away from tradition. Although Duchamp had already raised the idea of multiples by producing three versions of ‘The Bicycle Wheel in 1913. Duchamp was an artist who was constantly moving away from tradition and rejecting standard art practises. His fountain is prime example, a readymade, a simple mass-mechanically produced object. The same as any other produced on the same factory line except for being signed by the artist (however signed R Mutt). This taking of a mundane mechanical reproduction and labelling it art caused uproar at the time but has since been heralded as a very important piece of art and a turning point, as Benjamin said shattering traditions. Duchamp continued to produce works that shattered tradtions, one example being his Boite-en-valise (portable museum) which he produced to contain “approximately all the things I produced” (p175). From 1935 to 1940 he collected photographs of his works to be included in what eventually became a box (so he could include scaled down reproductions of some of his ready-mades). This form of mechanical reproduction, produced in an edition of 300 is interesting because it contains mechanically reproduced representations of original and unique works of art (of which some were ready-mades already). These reproductions in this box as a whole became the work itself and was then reproduced mechanically in an edition. If taken into the context of Benjamins essay there are many lines to be drawn. Duchamp is intentionally taking reproductions of his art to the viewer, making them more acsessable for the viewer, the objects can be viewed on his or her terms, as Benjamin said would happen with mechanical reproductions. Although this was what Duchamp intended. Also the aura of viewing the original works in the context they were intended for is lost because the viewer would simply be experiencing black and white photographs of the works included, or scaled down reproductions of a few 3d objects. However these reproductions aren’t simply reproductions, they are reproductions that form a work of art in itself, this concept throws up many questions, especially along the lines of originality and what is an authentic work of art. It would be as if Damien Hirst took photographs of all his works to date and published them in a book and called it a work of art unto itself.
Similarities can be drawn here between Duchamps Boite-en-valise and Andy Warhol’s Big Retrospective Painting (Reversal Series) Both artists have mechanically reproduced some of there former work to produce a new work which is in its own right a new fresh work of art though contains only reproductions of existing works. Benjamin may say that these works are not original works of art but reproductions, however he may also argue that they are original in their own right because they take the original work and put it in a different context so the collected reproductions become a piece that is not just a mechanical reproduction because the context has changed. However he may say that these new works containing reproductions of old works are only original authentic works if they are produced only once as a one off. Which is not the case with Duchamps box. I find this re-using of already used imagery interesting because as a result the artists can comment on there own work, or make references to how things have changed either for them as an artist or how whatever there reason for making their art has changed.
“printmakers have nothing to say but ten different ways of saying it’ anon
In conclusion…………