Walter Benjamin Vs. Walter Percy

In their respective essays The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction and The Loss of the Creature, Walter Benjamin and Walter Percy both agree that changes in modern lifestyles have caused a loss of authenticity in the arts. However, while both theorists hold that the rises of consumerism and technology are partial contributors to that loss, their positions on what exactly causes the loss of authenticity, and what can be done to reclaim it, differ significantly.

Benjamin believes that "the presence of an original is a prerequisite to authenticity (pp. 78)," meaning that it is impossible to enjoy a completely authentic viewing of something if it is not the original. He offers nothing further than that an object cannot be enjoyed in its full state of sovereignty unless it is the original work of art. Percy takes a slightly different position with this issue, and claims that only the very first person to view an object can enjoy it in its full sovereignty. He explains this theory by claiming that, after the object has been viewed by one person, every other person who views it after the initial viewing will have his/her impression tainted by the person(s) who have gone before. In this way, nobody after the initial viewer will ever have a truly authentic viewing experience again. He writes, "The present experience is always measured by a prototype (pp. 593)." Benjamin's viewpoint seems to allow for many more people to have a truly authentic experience than does Percy's.

Benjamin asserts that a mechanically reproduced piece does not provide the same level of authenticity as an original, but that it is still inherently better than a mechanical reproduction. This is for two reasons: firstly, mass reproductions made by machines are much less like an original than a mechanically simulated piece. If a piece is mass produced in a factory of some sort, is completely lacking the personal touch that a manual reproduction has; even though a manual simulation of a Van Gogh is not an original painting, the fact that there are actual hand-brushed strokes of paint on the canvas make the painting far more individual than mass-produced prints, which are merely a two-dimensional skeleton of the original. Secondly, Benjamin asserts that a mass-produced reproduction of a work can find itself in situations which would be unavailable to the original itself, which Benjamin claims always depreciates the value of the work (Benjamin, pp. 78). Percy doesn't even approach the idea of simulations, but rather focuses on the idea of emulations, meaning the action one has to take in order to regain the authenticity of an experience. He says that there are a few ways in which one can potentially recover authenticity and view things as they were meant to be viewed, without being tainted by the input of others. One way to recover authenticity is to "leave the beaten track (pp. 590)." For example, if one makes an attempt to approach the object/situation from a particularly unusual perspective and deliberately avoids utilizing facilities provided to enhance the experience, then he/she has a chance to have a "sovereign" experience. Another way to have a sovereign experience is to partake in "a dialectical movement which brings one back to the beaten track, but a level above it (pp. 590)." A good example Percy uses in his essay is that of a man who, after years of avoiding the beaten path, deliberately seeks out the most commonplace, over-advertised, and overpopulated experience possible, and by doing so, ends up "[standing] on the shoulders" of his peers, who are viewing the experience for the first time, and seeing much more clearly and deeply into the experience.

Benjamin doesn't make a connection between the authenticity of an experience and the number of people who have the experience, while Percy certainly does. Benjamin readily accepts that many people view art on a regular basis, and that the quantity of viewers does not depreciate the value of a work. He writes that many people can view a work of art simultaneously and all enjoy the same quality experience, but if the work is a representation, then nobody will enjoy an authentic experience. Percy takes just the opposite stance, and writes, "is looking like sucking: the more lookers, the less there is to see (pp. 590)?" He says that, in order to truly have an authentic experience, one must view the object in question alone, if possible, as the fewer people that are viewing the object, the more sovereign the view of those who are present becomes.

Benjamin does, however, make a connection between the mediums with which onlookers are using to view the work in question. For example, he believes that the "aura" of a piece (by piece he means some sort of performance art) can only be truly felt if the art is viewed in person, and not seen on film or television. This is because the emotions, movements, and feelings of the actors and actresses can be viewed in plain honesty in a live performance, and their own interpretation of the art comes through in a dazzling, convincing fashion. However, if one views the art on television, then what he/she is really seeing is the camera or producer's interpretation of how the art should appear; there is nothing authentic about it, as the film crew has the opportunity to completely manipulate the direction of the art to produce the desired effect, which may or may not include the integrity of the actors. This is somewhat comparable to Percy's assertions about possible methods of authentic recovery, but he really doesn't approach actual mediums with which to view certain objects.

Benjamin does not specifically broach the topic of the "expert" in relation to authenticity, as Percy does. Benjamin makes the original work the "expert" instead of a specific individual, but Percy uses the "expert" to make an attack on the independent thought abilities of the population. Percy claims that, regardless of how one tries to ensure that receive an authentic experience, authenticity is still frequently determined by what the experts think of the experience. Most people's experiences are subject to the approval of people who are perceived to know better than everyone else, i.e. "experts." Many people do not trust their own opinions to decide whether or not something is a valid, meaningful experience, so they rely on the opinions of those who are versed in the field to validate their experiences as legitimate.

Although both authors are extremely taken with the notion of authenticity in experience, they each have extremely different interpretations of what that requires on the part of the layman. These opposing views further contribute to the already confusing questions about who and what determine authenticity in various environments. Both authors seem to consider themselves experts in their fields, which makes it unsurprising that they both attempt to remove the responsibility for authenticity from the individual. In that small way, the two theorists have a bit of common ground. Their predominant ideas, however, clash significantly, leaving their readers to question the authenticity of their very experience reading the "expert" advice lended. In any case, their works establish several ways to potentially combat the loss of authenticity.