All this undoubtedly does not confirm the reactionary and naturalist recommendations that deny technique altogether. Because ultimately, technology is a necessary achievement for the democratization of consumption. But this function of technology can never be made dominant in a world dominated by capitalism.

How does art relate to technique? This question undoubtedly brings to mind Walter Benjamin’s famous article: “The Work of Art in the Age of Reproduction with the Possibilities of Technology”.

Benjamin’s dissatisfaction with technique has to do with authenticity. Because “technical reproduction” eliminates the uniqueness of the work of art: “The here and now of the original work creates the concept of authenticity of that work. Chemical analysis of green mold on a bronze work can help determine the authenticity of that work; Likewise, proving that a medieval manuscript comes from a fifteenth-century archive can make it easier to establish the authenticity of that manuscript. Authenticity remains completely outside the reproduction carried out by technical means – naturally but also by other means.”


Benjamin is, of course, aware of the possibilities of technology. Reproduction by technical means is superior to the “hand” and saves the work from the tyranny of time and space: “… while the genuine work preserves its authority completely against the reproduction made by hand, which is, as a rule, marked by imitation, this is not the case for the reproduction carried out by technical means.” . This is based on two reasons. First of all, technical reproduction is in a more independent position vis-à-vis the real work than the one made by hand. Reproduction through technical means, for example in photography, can highlight notes of the real work that can be objectively detected not by the human eye, but only by a lens that can be adjusted and can choose its point of view independently, and can detect images that cannot be perceived by the human eye with the help of methods such as magnification or slow motion. This is the first reason. Secondly, technical reproduction can place the copy of the original work in positions unthinkable for the original work. First of all, it enables the work to come to the viewer, whether through photography or record. The cathedral leaves its site to arrive at the studio of an art lover; A choral work performed in a hall or outdoors can be listened to in a room.”

Another point that Benjamin draws attention to is the loss of sanctity and ceremonialism: “As it is known, the oldest works of art were created to be used first in the service of magical and then religious sacred ceremonies. The decisive point here is that the connection between the existence of the work of art, which carries a special atmosphere, and its ceremonial function is never completely broken. In other words, the unique value of the “true” work of art finds its basis in the sacred ceremony, which is also the source of its original and first use value. The foundation in question, no matter how indirect, is evident even in the most worldly forms of serving the beautiful, as a ceremony independent of religion.” Although Benjamin emphasizes that the loss of ceremonialism also eliminates authenticity, he does not refrain from stating that technical reproduction liberates the work: “The technical reproducibility of the work of art frees the work from being a parasite on sacred ceremonies for the first time in world history.”

I focus neither on authenticity nor on ritual. In my opinion, the biggest negativity brought by technical reproduction is the massification of the work, that is, its colonization by consumer culture. In this context, it is necessary to underline the following sentence that Benjamin mentions in passing: “The technique of reproduction… by multiplying the reproduced, replaces its unique existence with its… mass existence.”

Mass production refers to a demand that exists or is desired to exist; that is, to mass consumption. Of course, a good work can become mass-market, but it is never produced for mass consumption. Even in communism, as an organized culture that frees man from the tyranny of basic needs, the crowd is dangerous. On the other hand, every mass production results in the disappearance of the work of art, as happens to strings swinging at an exaggerated speed. Today, visual and audio media, which have been deterritorialized on electronic platforms, have brought about the financialization of technical reproduction. In our age, industrial production of culture has turned into imaginary export, and mass consumption has turned into stock market speculation. Everything now consists of the number of listens and views on Spotify or YouTube. As Benjamin stated, statistics have invaded our perceptions and reality has become a quantitative hologram.
In the short conversation below, you will read the ideas of Evgeny Grinko, one of the important minimalist musicians of our age, about technique and minimalism. Grinko, unlike me, drew more attention to the possibilities of the technique. It’s up to the reader.

I liken Evgeny Grinko’s music to a lyrical poetry book consisting of sonnets. In this context, I would first like to ask: Why minimalism?

Minimalism is the only way for me to express my feelings and thoughts. We live in a world where information is extremely concentrated, so I think it is a very important ability for an artist to create a beautiful work with a minimum of notes, sounds or words.
In my opinion, a real artist should be able to touch people’s hearts with just a few notes.

I want to talk to you about the question of art and the market, since music is directly related to the cultural industry. Is art still possible in an age where most things have been devalued by turning them into popular consumption objects, or, in Walter Benjamin’s words, “where the work of art can be reproduced with the possibilities of technology”? In short, as a musician, what do you think about the future of art?

I’m actually optimistic about this, I suggest looking at the issue from another angle. New times create new opportunities. Today, an artist can communicate with society more directly than ever before, and art is becoming more accessible to the masses. For example, even 30-40 years ago, my chances of reaching people were extremely low. I had to go to record companies and hope they would record my music and put it on vinyl or CD. Or I had to find a wealthy patron, sponsor or investor. But today, thanks to social networks, you, as a musician, can reach your audience directly. Thanks to new possibilities, everyone can carry art on their phone in their pocket; The artist can also look for new ways to express himself, meet his audience and create new forms of art. So I’m excited for the future of technology and art, and I can’t wait to see how the music industry evolves.

Interview translated by: Kerim Can Kara

Read the original article at: https://www.birgun.net/makale/kultur-endustrisi-muzik-ve-minimalizm-401464

Music

View All Music