Walter Benjamin criticized cinema in the 1930s for causing traditional artworks to lose their aura, and this remains a pertinent issue even amid the advancement of modern digital technology.
Today, film is recognized as a representative art genre of our era, drawing audiences of tens of millions to a single movie. Yet it is intriguing that Walter Benjamin critically examined film as early as the 1930s, during its infancy. According to him, film is losing the aura possessed by traditional artworks.
Benjamin’s concept of ‘aura’ carries profound philosophical meaning. Aura is akin to a beautiful fragrance or a living, breathing vitality experienced when one abandons dehumanized, objectified consciousness and attitudes, and instead communicates with an object through the gaze of the soul. It is both near and far from us, appearing only fleetingly and uniquely in that moment of immersion through the communion of soul and object. Artistic works summon the aura dwelling in the depths, and the recipient experiences this aura through communion with such works. However, the aura of artistic works is destroyed as mechanical and technical devices like photography and cameras infiltrate the realm of art; Benjamin cites film as a prime example.
Benjamin points out that the most crucial feature of film is that the camera takes the place of the audience. In theater, actors and audience interact directly; actors portray characters other than themselves and can perform in sync with the audience’s breathing. The audience can experience the aura surrounding the protagonist of the play through the actor playing that role. However, in film, the camera intervenes between the actor and the audience. While the actor performs before the camera, the inhuman element inherent in the camera machine prevents the exchange of gazes. The audience only encounters the image projected on the screen, making it impossible to connect with the actor; they can only feel a sense of identification with the actor when they feel a sense of identification with the camera. Consequently, the audience adopts an attitude of visually scrutinizing and critiquing the actor, much like the camera does. As a result, the actor must be satisfied with performing tricks before the camera, isolated in a place akin to exile where all connections are severed. The aura surrounding the actor, as well as the aura of the character they portray, inevitably vanishes.
A film actor’s performance is not a unified act but a combination of multiple individual acts. This stems from the camera’s nature, which breaks down the actor’s performance into a series of assemblable episodes. The moments of action contained within a completed film, shot from multiple angles by the camera and edited, are solely those of the camera itself. The film actor is merely one of several props selectively placed at each moment of action. Therefore, there is no room for aura to intervene in the images assembled by the camera.
Citing these points, Benjamin criticizes that film most starkly reveals how art and its audience are distancing themselves from the beautiful realm of illusion, long considered the sole domain where traditional art could flourish. Whether Benjamin’s critique, prominent in cinema’s early days, can be fully applied to film—now celebrated as the darling of contemporary culture—remains uncertain.
Yet Benjamin’s critique still offers significant insights that cannot be dismissed as mere relics of the past. While modern digital technology has made film increasingly complex and sophisticated, this very advancement may accelerate the very loss of aura Benjamin feared. Ultra-high-definition digital filming techniques and the advancement of CGI (computer-generated imagery) enhance a film’s realism and strengthen audience immersion. Yet, this simultaneously carries the risk of transforming cinema’s unique artistic experience into mechanical repetition and standardized visual experiences.
Therefore, today’s filmmakers and audiences need to revisit Benjamin’s critical perspective. Maintaining a balance between technological advancement and artistic expression requires ongoing contemplation and effort to ensure film functions as a tool that enriches human aesthetic experience beyond mere visual pleasure. Benjamin’s insights can serve as crucial guidance in exploring the direction of contemporary film art, and his critical perspective continues to offer valid warnings and suggestions today.
