What is Aura? : A Study on Walter Benjamin’s Philosophy (by Tomoki Akimaru)

 

1 Aura and Time

What is Walter Benjamin’s concept of ‘Aura’?

In ‘Little History of Photography’ (1931), Benjamin describes the notion of aura in the following paragraph:

What is aura, actually? A strange weave of space and time: the unique appearance or resemblance of distance, no matter how close it may be. While at rest on a summer’s noon, to trace a range of mountains on the horizon, or a branch that throws its shadow on the observer, until the moment or the hour become part of their appearance—this is what it means to breathe the aura of those mountains, that branch.[1]

In ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility’ (1935-36), Benjamin repeats the notion of aura, which is as follows:

What, then, is the aura? A strange tissue of space and time: the unique apparition of a distance, however near it may be. To follow with the eye—while resting on a summer afternoon—a mountain range on the horizon or a branch that casts its shadow on the beholder is to breathe the aura of those mountains, of that branch.[2]

According to the above descriptions, ‘aura’ is ‘the unique appearance of a distance’ related to ‘space’ and ‘time.’ In the scenario cited by Benjamin, ‘aura’ can be interpreted as a ‘distance’ in terms of ‘time’ rather than of ‘space,’ for it appears ‘however near it may be,’ in Benjamin’s own words.

I would like to analyze this concept step by step. Firstly, this ‘strange weave of space and time,’ or ‘the unique appearance of a distance’ called ‘aura’ can be understood as the ‘time’ that an object has been accumulating in the ‘space’ since the beginning of the world. Precisely speaking, the term ‘object’ here includes both subjects and objects.

Secondly, since ‘to breathe the aura of a branch’ means ‘to follow with the eye the branch that throws its shadow on the observer,’ both the subject and the object must exist simultaneously when the subject ‘breathes the aura’ of the object, which means that the condition occurs on the premise that both the subject and the object are present in the same space and at the same time. In addition, if ‘to breathe the aura’ of an object means ‘to follow with the eye until the moment or the hour becomes part of their appearance,’ one can assume that in order for a subject to ‘breathe the aura’ of an object, it is imperative for the subject to perceive the object in the same ‘space’ on the extension of ‘time’ that the subject has been accumulating, and with the accumulated ‘time’ that the object itself carries.

Lastly, as the act of following with the eye is carried out while someone is ‘resting on a summer afternoon,’ one may assume the subject’s attention on the object to be static and sustained.

2 Aura and Interaction

What exactly are the constituents of ‘aura’ as accumulated ‘time’? Benjamin makes mention of this in ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire’ (1939), which is as follows: “Experience of the aura thus arises from the fact that a response characteristic of human relationships is transposed to the relationship between humans and inanimate or natural objects.[3]” In ‘Central Park’ (1939), Benjamin refers to ‘aura’ in the following sentence: “Derivation of the aura as the projection of a human social experience onto nature: the gaze is returned.[4]

After studying these descriptions, it becomes apparent that the conceptual basis of the ‘experience of the aura’ is the ‘response characteristic’ in the relationships between humans, and it is also applicable to the relationships between humans and inanimate objects. Moreover, one can presume that the ‘response characteristic’ is related to ‘the gaze,’ which is the act of seeing.

In ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,’ Benjamin mentions ‘aura’ in regard to the act of seeing: “The person we look at, or who feels he is being looked at, looks at us in turn. To experience the aura of an object one looks at means to invest it with the ability to look back at us.[5]” Also mentioned in the same writing is that “inherent in the gaze, however, is the expectation that it will be returned by that on which it is bestowed. Where this expectation is met (which, in the case of thought processes, can apply equally to an intentional gaze of awareness and to a glance pure and simple), there is an experience [Erfahrung] of the aura in all its fullness.[6]

What one can derive from these depictions is that for Benjamin, ‘the gaze’ denotes exact, intentional attention within the consciousness. As for vision, ‘the gaze’ does not merely mean seeing an object that comes into one’s view, but also concentrating to see it. In other words, it is the focusing, the observation, and the contemplation.

According to Benjamin, a subject can fully experience the aura of an object if the object, while being gazed at by the subject, gazes back at the subject. If the object becomes the gazer and the subject becomes the gazed, the subject is expected to gaze back at the object too. This is a mutual reaction, which, in other words, is an interaction between the subject and the object existing in the same space-time. A depiction by Benjamin himself regarding this interaction between the subject and the object can be found in ‘Fate and Character’ (1919): “Between the active man and the external world, all is interaction; their spheres of action interpenetrate.[7]

‘Aura,’ therefore, is a change of object which occurs as a result of this interaction. Also, all traces of this change accumulated in ‘time’ can be understood as ‘aura.’ In this context, ‘aura’ represents all the unique changes that the object has been amassing since its origin. Therefore, an experience of the aura (or to breathe the aura) means that the subject and the object, each carrying overall traces of changes accumulated in ‘time,’ are interacting in the same space-time, while each change caused by their interaction is continuously renewed by each overall trace of change accumulated in ‘time.’ In ‘Hashish, Beginning of March 1930’ (1930), Benjamin writes that ‘First, genuine aura appears in all things, not just in certain kinds of things, as people imagine. Second, the aura undergoes changes, which can be quite fundamental, with every movement the aura-wreathed object makes. Third, genuine aura can in no sense be thought of as a spruced-up version of the magic rays beloved of spiritualists and described and illustrated in vulgar works of mysticism.[8]

If one considers ‘the gaze’ as a kind of metaphor, interaction-generating aura is possible even with inanimate objects. Actually, in ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,’ Benjamin proposes the notion of aura brought about by senses other than vision: “If we think of the associations which, at home in the mémoire involontaire, seek to cluster around an object of perception, and if we call those associations the aura of that object, then the aura attaching to the object of a perception corresponds precisely to the experience [Erfahrung] which, in the case of an object of use, inscribes itself as long practice.[9]

If “the experience which, in the case of an object of use, inscribes itself as long practice” corresponds to “the aura attaching to the object of a perception”, it is quite inconceivable that the interaction which generates aura is confined solely to vision; all five senses, vision, touch, hearing, smell, and taste should be engaged for this interaction to take place. In ‘Main Features of My Second Impression of Hashish’ (1928), Benjamin notes that “Bloch wanted to touch my knee gently. I could feel the contact long before it actually reached me. I felt it as a highly repugnant wound to my aura.[10]

What, then, is the essence of the change engendered by such interaction? First, in the case of animate objects, it is an emotion or a conscious reaction such as reciprocation while being looked at.  Another possible case applicable to both animate and inanimate objects is the transformation of physical structure which happens to both the subject and the object when they come into contact with each other. For instance, if one touches with one’s bare hands paint which is not dry yet, the paint will be smeared, and one’s hands will get soiled. Finally, irrespective of whether the object is animate or otherwise, the update of the historical testimony of both subject and object when they exist in the same space-time can also be considered as a change. In ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,’ Benjamin furnishes the following explanation: “The authenticity of a thing is the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it from its origin on, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relating to it.[11]

An object is defined as the object by the subject, and the subject is also defined as the subject by the object; the object appears in the time of the subject, the subject also appears in the time of the object; the object is positioned by the position of the subject, the subject is also positioned by the position of the object; the relationship with the object is recorded in the accumulated time of the subject, and the relationship with the subject is also recorded in the accumulated time of the object. In this sense, ‘to invest it with the ability to look back at us” means the relationship with the subject is added to the accumulated time of the object. The process in which the subject and the object take in each other in each accumulated time can be described as breathing.

According to Benjamin’s concept, an object constantly interacts with other objects existing in the same space-time. The change generated by such interaction builds up as time-based accumulation. If the subject is animate, the higher the level of its attention toward the object, and the denser its emotion toward the object. If both the subject and the object are animate, one may call the interaction real-time communication. As the result, the mental or physical changes experienced by the subject and the object enrich their auras.

3 A Decay of the Aura

Based on the concepts mentioned above, one might define ‘aura’ as change and all its traces on all interacting objects in the same space-time. In The Arcades Project, Benjamin notes, in respect of trace and aura: “The trace is appearance of a nearness, however far removed the thing that left it behind may be. The aura is appearance of a distance, however close the thing that calls it forth. In the trace, we gain possession of the thing; in the aura, it takes possession of us.[12]

I wish to define the conscious perception when the subject experiences the aura of the object as aura-based perception. In ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,’ Benjamin states that “‘Perceptibility,’ as Novalis puts it, ‘is an attentiveness.’ The perceptibility he has in mind is none other than that of the aura.[13]

The generation of aura is natural, and aura-based perception is also natural for humans. The aura and aura-based perception have enriched mankind both physically and mentally. However, since the 19th century, the development of science and technology has interfered with subject-object relationships in various ways, including natural aura-based perception. There has been a marked decrease in interaction and hence aura. Moreover, the ability to perceive the aura weakens when the acuteness of the five senses is compromised or when the attention of the consciousness is diverted. Consequently, there has been a poverty in the experience of the aura,[14] which Benjamin describes as ‘a decay of the aura’[15].

For instance, on the subject of the railway, the regularity and monotony of steam-powered trains running on straight rails have rendered the relationship between the passenger and the scenery artificial and alienated. In such a situation, sight is the only sense being engaged, and conscious attention cannot function properly. Hence, the interaction between the passenger and the scenery weakens, and both aura and aura-based perception decline.

In another example, in the case of a photograph, the relationship between the viewer and the subject is severed and unilateral, and the image of the subject becomes superficial and dull. In such circumstances, vision is the only one of the five senses engaged, and continuous concentration is interrupted. Therefore, there is no interaction between the viewer and the subject, and both aura and aura-based perception decline.

Such deprivation of the experience of the aura is perceived as a ‘shock’[16] to those accustomed to aura-based perception. One may paraphrase the denaturalized perception as anti aura-based perception. In most cases, the older generations abhor such unnatural perception. Yet Benjamin insists that a new generation with its perception adapted to new realities begins to perceive it as attractive.

For example, in the case of the railway, passengers can travel to remote locations within short spaces of time. Similarly, regarding the photograph, the viewer can possess the image of the subject taken at a certain place and time and carry it anywhere he likes. In a film, which is the continuous projection of photographs, although only vision and hearing among the five senses are engaged, the viewer can enjoy moving images recorded in different spaces and times, complete with montages, closeups, slow motions, quick motions, etc. On the radio, although only hearing among the five senses is engaged, people can hear sounds from faraway places. On the telephone, people are connected despite the vast distances between them.

In the above cases, one can act beyond the natural constraints of space and time. In ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,’ Benjamin summarizes this new mentality as follows: “The desire of the present-day masses to ‘get closer’ to things, and their equally passionate concern for overcoming each thing’s uniqueness by assimilating it as a reproduction.[17]

Benjamin evaluates these new modes of perception and exalts their potential in human activity. His concept of ‘aura’ is certainly a useful instrument for analyzing the transformation of human perception in modern times.

 

 

[1] Walter Benjamin, ‘Little History of Photography’ (1931), in Selected Writings, Volume 2, Part 2: 1931-1934, translated by Rodney Livingstone and Others, edited by Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005, pp. 518-519.

[2] Walter Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility [Second Version]’ (1935-36), in Selected Writings, Volume 3: 1935-1938, translated by Edmund Jephcott, Howard Eiland, and Others, edited by Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006, pp. 104-105.

[3] Walter Benjamin, ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire’ (1939), in Selected Writings, Volume 4: 1938-1940, translated by Edmund Jephcott and Others, edited by Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006, p. 338.

[4] Walter Benjamin, ‘Central Park’ (1939), in Selected Writings, Volume 4: 1938-1940, translated by Edmund Jephcott and Others, edited by Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006, p. 173.

[5] Benjamin, ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,’ p. 338.

[6] Ibid., p. 338.

[7] Walter Benjamin, ‘Fate and Character’ (1919), in Selected Writings, Volume 1: 1913-1926, edited by Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2004, p. 202.

[8] Walter Benjamin, ‘Hashish, Beginning of March 1930’ (1930), in Selected Writings, Volume 2, Part 1: 1927-1930, translated by Rodney Livingstone and Others, edited by Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005, pp. 327-328.

[9] Benjamin, ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,’ p. 337.

[10] Walter Benjamin, ‘Main Features of My Second Impression of Hashish’(1928), in Selected Writings, Volume 2, Part 1: 1927-1930, translated by Rodney Livingstone and Others, edited by Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005, p. 87.

[11] Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,’ p. 103.

[12] Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, translated by Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin, prepared on the basis of the German volume edited by Rolf Tiedemann, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002, p. 447.

[13] Benjamin, ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,’ p. 338.

[14] Walter Benjamin, ‘Experience and Poverty’ in Selected Writings, Volume 2, Part 2: 1931-1934, translated by Rodney Livingstone and Others, edited by Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005, pp. 731-736.

[15] Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,’ p. 104.

[16] Benjamin, ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,’ p. 318.

[17] Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,’ p. 105.

著者: (AKIMARU Tomoki)

美術評論家・美学者・美術史家・キュレーター。1997年多摩美術大学美術学部芸術学科卒業、1998年インターメディウム研究所アートセオリー専攻修了、2001年大阪大学大学院文学研究科文化表現論専攻美学文芸学専修修士課程修了、2009年京都芸術大学大学院芸術研究科美術史専攻博士課程単位取得満期退学、2012年京都芸術大学より博士学位(学術)授与。2013年に博士論文『ポール・セザンヌと蒸気鉄道――近代技術による視覚の変容』(晃洋書房)を出版し、2014年に同書で比較文明学会研究奨励賞(伊東俊太郎賞)受賞。2010年4月から2012年3月まで京都大学こころの未来研究センターで連携研究員として連携研究プロジェクト「近代技術的環境における心性の変容の図像解釈学的研究」の研究代表を務める。主なキュレーションに、現代京都藝苑2015「悲とアニマ——モノ学・感覚価値研究会」展(会場:北野天満宮、会期:2015年3月7日〜2015年3月14日)、現代京都藝苑2015「素材と知覚——『もの派』の根源を求めて」展(第1会場:遊狐草舎、第2会場:Impact Hub Kyoto〔虚白院 内〕、会期:2015年3月7日〜2015年3月22日)、現代京都藝苑2021「悲とアニマⅡ~いのちの帰趨~」展(第1会場:両足院〔建仁寺塔頭〕、第2会場:The Terminal KYOTO、会期:2021年11月19日~2021年11月28日)、「藤井湧泉——龍花春早 猫虎懶眠」展(第1会場:高台寺、第2会場:圓徳院、第3会場:掌美術館、会期:2022年3月3日~2022年5月6日)等。2023年に高木慶子・秋丸知貴『グリーフケア・スピリチュアルケアに携わる人達へ』(クリエイツかもがわ・2023年)出版。

2010年4月-2012年3月: 京都大学こころの未来研究センター連携研究員
2011年4月-2013年3月: 京都大学地域研究統合情報センター共同研究員
2011年4月-2016年3月: 京都大学こころの未来研究センター共同研究員
2016年4月-: 滋賀医科大学非常勤講師
2017年4月-2024年3月: 上智大学グリーフケア研究所非常勤講師
2020年4月-2023年3月: 上智大学グリーフケア研究所特別研究員
2021年4月-2024年3月: 京都ノートルダム女子大学非常勤講師
2022年4月-: 京都芸術大学非常勤講師

【投稿予定】

■ 秋丸知貴『近代とは何か?――抽象絵画の思想史的研究』
序論 「象徴形式」の美学
第1章 「自然」概念の変遷
第2章 「象徴形式」としての一点透視遠近法
第3章 「芸術」概念の変遷
第4章 抽象絵画における形式主義と神秘主義
第5章 自然的環境から近代技術的環境へ
第6章 抽象絵画における機械主義
第7章 スーパーフラットとヤオヨロイズム

■ 秋丸知貴『美とアウラ――ヴァルター・ベンヤミンの美学』
第1章 ヴァルター・ベンヤミンの「アウラ」概念について
第2章 ヴァルター・ベンヤミンの「アウラの凋落」概念について
第3章 ヴァルター・ベンヤミンの「感覚的知覚の正常な範囲の外側」の問題について
第4章 ヴァルター・ベンヤミンの芸術美学――「自然との関係における美」と「歴史との関係における美」
第5章 ヴァルター・ベンヤミンの複製美学――「複製技術時代の芸術作品」再考

■ 秋丸知貴『近代絵画と近代技術――ヴァルター・ベンヤミンの「アウラ」概念を手掛りに』
序論 近代技術的環境における心性の変容の図像解釈学的研究
第1章 近代絵画と近代技術
第2章 印象派と大都市群集
第3章 セザンヌと蒸気鉄道
第4章 フォーヴィズムと自動車
第5章 「象徴形式」としてのキュビズム
第6章 近代絵画と飛行機
第7章 近代絵画とガラス建築(1)――印象派を中心に
第8章 近代絵画とガラス建築(2)――キュビズムを中心に
第9章 近代絵画と近代照明(1)――フォーヴィズムを中心に
第10章 近代絵画と近代照明(2)――抽象絵画を中心に
第11章 近代絵画と写真(1)――象徴派を中心に
第12章 近代絵画と写真(2)――エドゥアール・マネ、印象派を中心に
第13章 近代絵画と写真(3)――後印象派、新印象派を中心に
第14章 近代絵画と写真(4)――フォーヴィズム、キュビズムを中心に
第15章 抽象絵画と近代技術――ヴァルター・ベンヤミンの「アウラ」概念を手掛りに

■ 秋丸知貴『ポール・セザンヌと蒸気鉄道 補遺』
第1章 ポール・セザンヌの生涯と作品――19世紀後半のフランス画壇の歩みを背景に
第2章 ポール・セザンヌの中心点(1)――自筆書簡と実作品を手掛かりに
第3章 ポール・セザンヌの中心点(2)――自筆書簡と実作品を手掛かりに
第4章 ポール・セザンヌと写真――近代絵画における写真の影響の一側面

■ Tomoki Akimaru Cézanne and the Railway
Cézanne and the Railway (1): A Transformation of Visual Perception in the 19th Century
Cézanne and the Railway (2): The Earliest Railway Painting Among the French Impressionists
Cézanne and the Railway (3): His Railway Subjects in Aix-en-Provence

■ 秋丸知貴『岸田劉生と東京――近代日本絵画におけるリアリズムの凋落』
序論 日本人と写実表現
第1章 岸田吟香と近代日本洋画――洋画家岸田劉生の誕生
第2章 岸田劉生の写実回帰 ――大正期の細密描写
第3章 岸田劉生の東洋回帰――反西洋的近代化
第4章 日本における近代化の精神構造
第5章 岸田劉生と東京

■ 秋丸知貴『〈もの派〉の根源――現代日本美術における伝統的感受性』
第1章 関根伸夫《位相-大地》論――日本概念派からもの派へ
第2章 現代日本美術における自然観――関根伸夫の《位相-大地》(1968年)から《空相-黒》(1978年)への展開を中心に
第3章 Qui sommes-nous? ――小清水漸の1966年から1970年の芸術活動の考察
第4章 現代日本美術における土着性――小清水漸の《垂線》(1969年)から《表面から表面へ-モニュメンタリティー》(1974年)への展開を中心に
第5章 現代日本彫刻における土着性――小清水漸の《a tetrahedron-鋳鉄》(1974年)から「作業台」シリーズへの展開を中心に

■ 秋丸知貴『藤井湧泉論――知られざる現代京都の超絶水墨画家』
第1章 藤井湧泉(黄稚)――中国と日本の美的昇華
第2章 藤井湧泉と伊藤若冲――京都・相国寺で花開いた中国と日本の美意識(前編)
第3章 藤井湧泉と伊藤若冲――京都・相国寺で花開いた中国と日本の美意識(中編)
第4章 藤井湧泉と伊藤若冲――京都・相国寺で花開いた中国と日本の美意識(後編)
第5章 藤井湧泉と京都の禅宗寺院――一休寺・相国寺・金閣寺・林光院・高台寺・圓徳院
第6章 藤井湧泉の《妖女赤夜行進図》――京都・高台寺で咲き誇る新時代の百鬼夜行図
第7章 藤井湧泉の《雲龍嘯虎襖絵》――兵庫・大蔵院に鳴り響く新時代の龍虎図(前編)
第8章 藤井湧泉の《雲龍嘯虎襖絵》――兵庫・大蔵院に鳴り響く新時代の龍虎図(後編)
第9章 藤井湧泉展――龍花春早・猫虎懶眠
第10章 藤井湧泉展――水墨雲龍・極彩猫虎
第11章 藤井湧泉展――龍虎花卉多吉祥
第12章 藤井湧泉展――ネコトラとアンパラレル・ワールド

■ 秋丸知貴『比較文化と比較芸術』
序論 比較の重要性
第1章 西洋と日本における自然観の比較
第2章 西洋と日本における宗教観の比較
第3章 西洋と日本における人間観の比較
第4章 西洋と日本における動物観の比較
第5章 西洋と日本における絵画観(画題)の比較
第6章 西洋と日本における絵画観(造形)の比較
第7章 西洋と日本における彫刻観の比較
第8章 西洋と日本における建築観の比較
第9章 西洋と日本における庭園観の比較
第10章 西洋と日本における料理観の比較
第11章 西洋と日本における文学観の比較
第12章 西洋と日本における演劇観の比較
第13章 西洋と日本における恋愛観の比較
第14章 西洋と日本における死生観の比較

■ 秋丸知貴『ケアとしての芸術』
第1章 グリーフケアとしての和歌――「辞世」を巡る考察を中心に
第2章 グリーフケアとしての芸道――オイゲン・ヘリゲル『弓と禅』を手掛かりに
第3章 絵画制作におけるケアの基本構造――形式・内容・素材の観点から
第4章 絵画鑑賞におけるケアの基本構造――代弁と共感の観点から
第5章 フィンセント・ファン・ゴッホ論
第6章 エドヴァルト・ムンク論
第7章 草間彌生論
第8章 アウトサイダー・アート論

■ 秋丸知貴『芸術創造の死生学』
第1章 アンリ・エランベルジェの「創造の病い」概念について
第2章 ジークムント・フロイトの「昇華」概念について
第3章 カール・グスタフ・ユングの「個性化」概念について
第4章 エーリッヒ・ノイマンの「中心向性」概念について
第5章 エイブラハム・マズローの「至高体験」概念について
第6章 ミハイ・チクセントミハイの「フロー」概念について

http://tomokiakimaru.web.fc2.com/