Aestheticization of politics as Walter Benjamin’s statement

The most famous statements are often put out of the context. We hear them and discussion begins. And every opinion involved in the discussion brings its own subjective vision on which person usually is focused more than on finding the truth. Maybe the same thing is with Walter Benjamin’s statement about “aestheticization of politics”. Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” isn’t really about fascism and Hitler as a special person who had made his politic aesthetically attractive to the mass, but about the tendency, which Benjamin saw arising in culture, and fascism is discussed here mostly in the epilogue. 

At the beginning of the epilogue, Benjamin says: “The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life” (Benjamin). But he also says in the end: “Its (mankind) self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order. This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art” (Benjamin). I think this way the quotation looks fuller. Because of mentioning communism it’s clearer that in his essay Benjamin’s talking about a general tendency which different political regimes face. It’s rather general cultural tendency then only political one and to confirm this thought whole essay is written about the art evolution linked to a scientific-technical evolution and such a regime as fascism coming as the result of changes to aestheticize the politics. 

It was scientific-technical progress which created a possibility of making copies from originals. The progress had begun since the 19th century and continued with all its power in the 20th century when a lot of mechanical and pressed to shape things were created. Individuality was reducing and mass production was increasing its popularity. In fact, whole this period of time was defined with a mass rising power, and there were researches about mass consciousness and how it can be controlled (Marx, Nietzsche, Jung, etc.). Benjamin admits that in the early 20th century there were two dominant tendencies: willing to destroy everything unique, because it was associated with bourgeoisness and willing to bring things closer to everyone (Benjamin). That was the demand that reasoned mass culture rise. 

An original object has its aesthetic value, but reproduction loses a lot during the processing, especially when it’s done by a machine. Benjamin names the thing reproduced object lose “an aura” of the object and explains: “We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however, close it may be” (Benjamin). It’s impossible to reconstruct the Roman Empire with all its cultural complexity within Germany of the 20th century, so most of the idea is missing; it’s impossible for Hitler to explain his ideas to every person in Nazi Germany, so simplified image of his ideas and himself was created and pressed to shape to transmit to mass auditory.

A thing that has been made to cater to mass auditory is always simplified according to mass auditory characteristics, so a part of the original aura is always missing. Mass auditory communicate with the censored image of the real thing, not with the real thing itself. And the emptiness formed by a simplifying process points Benjamin can be replaced by someone’s view (Benjamin). For example, politics’ view. 

Critics call Benjamin’s statement about aestheticization of politics a “cryptic” one and argue that Hitler’s fascistic regime was not the first case when politics “employed” art – a part of a culture responsible for aesthetic values formation. But in his essay, Benjamin has already given an answer to such critics. He says: “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual” (Benjamin). Indeed, there was a deep cultural tradition, which reasoned Roman’s army orders and whole Roman Empire civilization; Nazi Germany “woke up” only that part of the Aryan culture which regime was needed. Images, separated from the origin can be widely used. Population in Nazi Germany wanted to be like Hitler, but rarely ever contacted with “original” him and complex of his ideas. And media development (especially, cinematography) played a great role in such a popularization. Edition process, even in originally documentary films like Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl easily can make propaganda from reality because of the editor’s subjective point of view, and show the aesthetic even if there isn’t one. Mass audience consider something aesthetic because it was shown that way, and power of the beauty now can serve for politics’ interests, and even cruel things can be masked with a good picture. 

I consider Benjamin’s ideas as extremely relevant ones, but also as it was in a case with the quote about fascism “aestheticization of politics”, Benjamin’s ideas must be understood widely. Of course, nowadays politics continue “to employ” mass culture and use media technology to achieve their goals, to come to power and to control mass opinion. But they're not only politics doing that. The whole advertising business is built on the exploitation of images that previously belonged to some cultural tradition, or new ones coming from no tradition at all. Show business also is built on audience adoration of people (“stars”) they don’t know, but nevertheless imitate their behavior and lifestyle. Aestheticization of politics is now joined by aestheticization of moneymaking