I enjoy the poetic element in Benjamin's work regarding War and art. Its been argued before that war is beautiful, however, it’s not commonly presented in regards to visual art. Robert Zemeckis film Forrest Gump serves a good example of war within visual art. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it is by far my favorite film of all times. It was such a heartwarming film, it has all the elements that makes a good film and more. What The film is essentially about is Forrest Gump- the protagonist’s fascinating life. The main character kindly shares with strangers at a bus stop how he was born with a walking disability yet came to be an all american football player and how he ran across entire states just because he felt like it. Along with starting his own shrimp business that became very popular and a few other things he initiated, Forrest Gump also served in in the army during the vietnamese war. Although the film only dedicates a short portion of Forrest’s time in the war, it does present several elements of war. Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” ,John Berger’s Ways of seeing and the film Forrest Gump are not relevant to each other, however all three share a relationship within: visual art, war, reproduction and technology.
Walter Benjamin brought up the notion of war in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” however its towards the end where he elaborates on the relationship between war and art. He essentially argues that war is beautiful because it carries with it the essence of revolution - of social movement “ Imperialistic war is a rebellion of technology which collects, in the form of “human material,” the claims to which society has denied its natural material.” Benjamin argues that art loses when it is mass reproduced, he wants to make clear to the reader is that all forms of art are being imperialistically regulated through reproduction. Its through the means of reproduction that art has lost it’s original value and meaning.
As explained by John Berger in Ways of seeing, we live in this new reality where visual art is seen as it never was before in view of reproduction. We can experience it were we want it, when we want it and how we want, as opposed to people in previous decades. Individuals had to compromise more of his or her time and effort to experience a piece or art. John Berger mentions how visual art is confirmed and consolidated by everything that surrounded it and uses the example of graphics on church walls. In the church an image meant more than it does now on an ad next to your facebook status. Berger reasons for how original works of visual art have become vulnerable because of technology and mass reproduction.
When attempting to make sense of the the films interpretation of war and Benjamin's stance on war in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”but more importantly, John Berger’s take on visual art and the way we see it now in Ways of seeing, I came to the conclusion that war within a film, such as Forrest Gump, the images and meaning and the relationship between what took place in reality and what is presented in the reproduction of reality is evidently not the same. I followed that train of thought and it brought me to conceptualize war within art as the reproduction of it shapes the viewer's understanding of what war is or what war in art means today.
Truth and Authentic
When watching the film analytically, I understood that the scene involving Gump’s service in the war were not entirely true, however certain events such runing from bombs or shooters, going back into a dangerous war zone for a group of friends getting shot in the butt or watching your good friend die in your arms are occurrences that surely did take place at some point in someones life during war.The unfortunate reality is that certain events can never be recreated exactly the same way even if the editors wanted to. The war scene were true occurrences that were taken out of their context and recreated to fit in a storyline for a movie. It was then in there when I began to feel the inauthenticity of the piece of art. The entering of reproduction and the integration of technology in terms of the loss of authenticity, transpired almost in a form of biomagnification. Only that in place of it increasing it is decreasing in authenticity. Putting aside the fact that the events in the film weren't entirely real, you'd think that the film would be the only one of its kind so in a sense it was original. At one point there was only one copy of the film until it had to be reproduced so people all over the world could see it at movie theaters, but then it had to be mass produced so everyone could have a copy the could watch at home. The process does not end there, in todays day and age everyone can have a copy of the film on their phone or laptop. So now that people have the piece of art as close as they would want it they could do whatever they want with it. People make meme’s, parodies, and gif’s off of the film
This is then the problem Walter had with mechanical reproduction. When the movie was complete and released at movie theaters, people everywhere had to go and watch the film there. The same goes for paintings only they are more prestige in view of the fact there is only one original, were as a film has to be replicated in order to be viewed at a movie theaters everywhere. After original works of visual art is mass produced the piece of art is almost nothing. The public may take it for granted, or manipulate it but at the end of the day it’s lost a portion of its original value. But the question still remains, what then does this show about war? If the piece of art is not important enough to keep authentic or original why should anything within that particular piece of art also?
Visual Art is a Language
For someone who has never been to war, but has access to the media, pictures, paintings, books and movies on war, that individuals interpretation of war begins to shaped by such factors. No one questions the accuracy of the piece of art because its art. Art is almost like an opinion, its the creators point of view, it doesn't matter if its accurate because its just an opinion. The problem however is when an individual bases his or her understanding of war and art off of opinions. Concepts such as war should be objective and by mass producing piece of art containing elements of war not only makes it accessible to everyone but also puts it in a vulnerable state to where everyone can add or take away from the piece of art. Berger elaborates on this circumstance by stating that often paintings much like movies can be used to make arguments which may be different from from their original meaning.
In america there is freedom of speech and expression, in many situations it is done through visual art. The couples of scenes in the film Forrest Gump where the setting is during the vietnamese war, are a representation of the editors and directors point of view of war. John Berger states in his video how images can be used as a language, and its through these couple of scene in which they make a statement about what they think it is like to lose a close friend, or what it means to serve in the army through the main character's point of view. It is important to keep in mind that the events in the film did happen; there really was a vietnamese war- people did die. But the representation of war’s reality is not quite present in the film. For example, the film portrays the main character as naive and almost ignorant at times ,and yet he being how he is, survives the war and does perfectly fine as opposed to his friend “Buba” or the lieutenant Dan. I am not saying its not possible however its extremely unrealistic. Visual art frequently will present a concept in an unrealistic manner and when this art becomes mass produced due to reproduction or widely obtainable because of technology, society almost in a sense begins to believe the concept represented as reality as true.
Conclusion
There is so much to be expected from war in visual art. Certain features of war that can be highlighted through art, old or new pieces of art. War seems to be timeless and there are many arguments to be made through visual art. Walter Benjamin's “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” could be considered a piece of art emphasizing the beauty factor of war to the the attention of the masses.
There is yet one last impression I am left with after reading Benjamin's work and watching John’s video and that is: no matter how reproducible and accessible art become it will always reveal something to the viewer. Images much like films, will be interpreted and most likely understood differently according to each individual's experience. I enjoyed how although Forest Gump has been reproduced and perhaps had lost it’s original aura, it did not obstruct my ability to directly decipher what is taking place in the couple of scenes concerning war based off of my own experiences. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what the reality of war in visual art or war itself is, because it will be interpreted differently based off of each individual's experiences of the matter. While I do not resonate with war as it is presented in the film does not me everybody else will too. The reproduction of original works of visual art and it’s relationship with todays technology has skewed my apprehension of war seeing that it is present everywhere being used as a language to persuade me or impress me concerning something that has little to nothing to do with the original meaning of the visual piece of art.
As explained by John Berger in Ways of seeing, we live in this new reality where visual art is seen as it never was before in view of reproduction. We can experience it were we want it, when we want it and how we want, as opposed to people in previous decades. Individuals had to compromise more of his or her time and effort to experience a piece or art. John Berger mentions how visual art is confirmed and consolidated by everything that surrounded it and uses the example of graphics on church walls. In the church an image meant more than it does now on an ad next to your facebook status. Berger reasons for how original works of visual art have become vulnerable because of technology and mass reproduction.
When attempting to make sense of the the films interpretation of war and Benjamin's stance on war in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”but more importantly, John Berger’s take on visual art and the way we see it now in Ways of seeing, I came to the conclusion that war within a film, such as Forrest Gump, the images and meaning and the relationship between what took place in reality and what is presented in the reproduction of reality is evidently not the same. I followed that train of thought and it brought me to conceptualize war within art as the reproduction of it shapes the viewer's understanding of what war is or what war in art means today.
Truth and Authentic
When watching the film analytically, I understood that the scene involving Gump’s service in the war were not entirely true, however certain events such runing from bombs or shooters, going back into a dangerous war zone for a group of friends getting shot in the butt or watching your good friend die in your arms are occurrences that surely did take place at some point in someones life during war.The unfortunate reality is that certain events can never be recreated exactly the same way even if the editors wanted to. The war scene were true occurrences that were taken out of their context and recreated to fit in a storyline for a movie. It was then in there when I began to feel the inauthenticity of the piece of art. The entering of reproduction and the integration of technology in terms of the loss of authenticity, transpired almost in a form of biomagnification. Only that in place of it increasing it is decreasing in authenticity. Putting aside the fact that the events in the film weren't entirely real, you'd think that the film would be the only one of its kind so in a sense it was original. At one point there was only one copy of the film until it had to be reproduced so people all over the world could see it at movie theaters, but then it had to be mass produced so everyone could have a copy the could watch at home. The process does not end there, in todays day and age everyone can have a copy of the film on their phone or laptop. So now that people have the piece of art as close as they would want it they could do whatever they want with it. People make meme’s, parodies, and gif’s off of the film
This is then the problem Walter had with mechanical reproduction. When the movie was complete and released at movie theaters, people everywhere had to go and watch the film there. The same goes for paintings only they are more prestige in view of the fact there is only one original, were as a film has to be replicated in order to be viewed at a movie theaters everywhere. After original works of visual art is mass produced the piece of art is almost nothing. The public may take it for granted, or manipulate it but at the end of the day it’s lost a portion of its original value. But the question still remains, what then does this show about war? If the piece of art is not important enough to keep authentic or original why should anything within that particular piece of art also?
Visual Art is a Language
For someone who has never been to war, but has access to the media, pictures, paintings, books and movies on war, that individuals interpretation of war begins to shaped by such factors. No one questions the accuracy of the piece of art because its art. Art is almost like an opinion, its the creators point of view, it doesn't matter if its accurate because its just an opinion. The problem however is when an individual bases his or her understanding of war and art off of opinions. Concepts such as war should be objective and by mass producing piece of art containing elements of war not only makes it accessible to everyone but also puts it in a vulnerable state to where everyone can add or take away from the piece of art. Berger elaborates on this circumstance by stating that often paintings much like movies can be used to make arguments which may be different from from their original meaning.
In america there is freedom of speech and expression, in many situations it is done through visual art. The couples of scenes in the film Forrest Gump where the setting is during the vietnamese war, are a representation of the editors and directors point of view of war. John Berger states in his video how images can be used as a language, and its through these couple of scene in which they make a statement about what they think it is like to lose a close friend, or what it means to serve in the army through the main character's point of view. It is important to keep in mind that the events in the film did happen; there really was a vietnamese war- people did die. But the representation of war’s reality is not quite present in the film. For example, the film portrays the main character as naive and almost ignorant at times ,and yet he being how he is, survives the war and does perfectly fine as opposed to his friend “Buba” or the lieutenant Dan. I am not saying its not possible however its extremely unrealistic. Visual art frequently will present a concept in an unrealistic manner and when this art becomes mass produced due to reproduction or widely obtainable because of technology, society almost in a sense begins to believe the concept represented as reality as true.
Conclusion
There is so much to be expected from war in visual art. Certain features of war that can be highlighted through art, old or new pieces of art. War seems to be timeless and there are many arguments to be made through visual art. Walter Benjamin's “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” could be considered a piece of art emphasizing the beauty factor of war to the the attention of the masses.
There is yet one last impression I am left with after reading Benjamin's work and watching John’s video and that is: no matter how reproducible and accessible art become it will always reveal something to the viewer. Images much like films, will be interpreted and most likely understood differently according to each individual's experience. I enjoyed how although Forest Gump has been reproduced and perhaps had lost it’s original aura, it did not obstruct my ability to directly decipher what is taking place in the couple of scenes concerning war based off of my own experiences. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what the reality of war in visual art or war itself is, because it will be interpreted differently based off of each individual's experiences of the matter. While I do not resonate with war as it is presented in the film does not me everybody else will too. The reproduction of original works of visual art and it’s relationship with todays technology has skewed my apprehension of war seeing that it is present everywhere being used as a language to persuade me or impress me concerning something that has little to nothing to do with the original meaning of the visual piece of art.
Avisely Solis is a Freshman student at Cal State, Northridge and is studying Anthropology along with Psychology. She hopes to one travel the middles east learning all about the people and their culture.