𓆰𓆪 Desolation Angel 𓆰𓆪

When Benjamin undertook his analysis of the age of technological reproductivity, that mode was in its infancy. 

Since the transformation of the superstructure proceeds far more slowly than that of the base, it has taken more than a century for the change in the conditions of technological production to be manifested in all areas of culture. 

As a relatively new medium of art and technology, short-form video’s capacity as art, and therefore its capacity to be political instruments are yet to be considered thoroughly. Short-form video is defined as a five to 90 second video filmed in a vertical orientation and usually part of a larger series of infinitely scrollable short-from videos. Like film and photography, short-form video deserves a rigorous examination of its present conditions of production. Using Benjamin’s analytical lens which examined the technological reproductivity and its consequence in film, a parallel method will be used to deconstruct short-from video and its effect on the masses. Short-form video, while initially appearing to democratize cultural production, ultimately reinforces capitalist structures through its algorithmic nature and emphasis on performativity. By analyzing this medium through Benjamin’s framework, short-form video can be seen as contributing to the erosion of critical engagement with art, and susceptibility of the masses to capitalist interest — ultimately to reinforce a counter-revolutionary perspective.  

Walter Benjamin wrote The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproductivity in 1936, and tragically passed at the hands of fascism in 1940. Just as film and photography were emerging as dominant cultural forms at the time, in the 21st century, social media occupies a similar space to the then emerging art forms that were addressed in Benjamin’s essay. As Benjamin states, “commentators had earlier expended much fruitless ingenuity on the question of whether photography was art — without asking the more fundamental question of whether the invention of photography had not transformed the entire character of art”. If film can be considered as not only entertainment but also art, the shorter and modernized version of a similar visual medium demands a parallel and broad consideration, not only as a medium but as a force that reshapes the relationship between modern culture, politics, and labour. Short-form video is art.

Benjamin first identifies the “general formula that the technology of reproduction detached the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition”. Benjamin’s greatest praise for film is that it has the potential to democratize art, making it accessible to the masses and breaking away from its traditional, elitist contexts; “the representation of human beings by means of an apparatus has made possible a highly productive use of the human being’s self-alienation”. By stripping art of its “aura,” film becomes a medium that can engage the masses critically and politically. In a world where “aura” is liquidated, art can be freed of its dependence on tradition and exclusivity, becoming a platform for collective engagement and revolutionary ideas or a “parasitic subservience to ritual”. Similarly, short-form video, in its extremely short length and near universal accessibility, can be seen as an ultimate liquidation of “aura”. Unlike film, short-form video requires no specialized equipment or education to create. Another limitation of film is how the industry has created “cult status” through the creation and enshrinement of celebrity actors. Short-form video replaces these cult figures with far more replaceable, temporary stars who do not have any nepotistic connections or elite training. The mass reproducibility and accessibility of short-form video both as a creator and observer sees “aura” diluted and lost at a rate unseen before. In such a globalized and contemporary context to which the art form has arisen — the first platform for the content, Vine was started in 2013 —  short-form video seemingly has no parasitic “service of ritual”. 

However, a glaring limitation to this optimistic view is that since 1936, art has become even further entrenched in capital motive, replacing this lack of “aura” with illusionary politics. When Benjamin wrote that “film is the artwork most capable of improvement. And this capability is lined with radical renunciation of eternal value”, film was still a physical, material object as well as art. Digitalization means that even for film this is not the case today. All short-form video is ultimately owned by a corporation, and therefore ownership of production is no longer held by the artist. For short-form video, “cult value” is replaced by nonetheless cult-like values of fleeting, socially constructed metrics such as likes and virality. The optimistic reading of reproducible art disappears in the face of the fact that the past century has only worked to solidify corporate, explicitly capitalist interest in art. 

Short-from video serves to make labour invisible. Here alienation works on two levels; not only the original alienation of a worker’s labour, but the consumer is alienated from the products themselves. Instead of viewing short-from video and smartphones as a product of labour, the automated, free, and endless nature of these objects reinforce the illusion of freedom and an absence of alienation. In the films of Benjamin’s time, the masses would have to physically interact with ticket-sellers, and sit through credits which list every single contributor of a film. Today, short-form video, and the supposed democratization of content creators who are supposedly a true representative of the masses hide the labour of the thousands who collaborate to create technology. Benjamin’s assertion that “any person today can lay claim to being filmed” can be taken another step further today, in that any person can lay claim to being filmed and filming themselves. Much of short-form video content is self-shot and self-produced. In this sense, participants in viral Tik Toks and their equivalents become “people who portray themselves — and primarily in their own work process”. Unlike the film industry’s “overriding interest in stimulating the involvement of the masses through illusionary displays” for capital, the masses themselves become an illusionary display of a false involvement. As a result, instead of engaging with the by whom and how our phones and apps are made which enable us to make art, the masses instead fixate on individual content creators and their own productions that provide an illusion of agency. In this sense, short-form video is counter-revolutionary. 

This idea is further reinforced by two key differences between film and short-from video; its automation and conditions of production. In the first, algorithms have removed the element of choice by presenting an endless, tailored, and localized feed of art. Even if movies had served “to supplant the class consciousness of the masses” there was still a degree of choice and therefore critical engagement with what art an individual could interact with. Instead, the apparent randomness of the algorithm again serves as an illusion to mask the highly productive and penetrative calculations made to hold the masses’ attention. In the second, this particular art form can not exist without its corresponding platforms, and therefore capitalist interest. While a select few studios do operate an oligarchy in Hollywood, anybody can still theoretically create and produce their own films with enough capital. For short-from video, without platforms such as Meta, Tik Tok, or YouTube, short-form video does not exist. Even if one filmed a short video on a phone, the means for its reproduction is completely digital and relies on other corporations — whether it be email (Microsoft, Google), social media (Meta), or text (Rogers) — for its dissemination. Not to mention that the video would most likely lose its social understanding as a piece of short-form video. 

This monopolization of short-from video also has overt fascist connotations. The particular politics of a surveillance state is not as relevant as the fact that both the surveillance state and corporations have full control and access over short-form video. Malevolent could theoretically alter the algorithm to push fascist content while maintaining an illusion of neutrality behind the algorithm, a system barely considered and understood as is. Benjamin would be devastated that the parasitic ritual has been replaced by a more overt parasitic reliance on capital interest.

In many ways, Benjamin was prophetic in his analysis of film. The reproducibility of art has extended not just to the consumption by the masses but by the creation of the masses as well. Short-from video is not only reproducible, but also subject to immediate mimicry. In fact, the art form designed for engagement and the immediate appearance and disappearance of “cult value”. Again, the parallel to “the most important social function of film” to “establish equilibrium between human beings and the apparatus” is solidified by the seemingly authentic, democratic facade of short form video. While attempting to “train human beings in the apperceptions and reactions needed to deal with a vast apparatus whose role in their loves is expanding almost daily”, short-form video platforms create a passive relationship between individuals and art, conditioning the masses to accept the whims of capital-prioritized algorithms while diminishing their capacity for critical engagement.

In conclusion, Walter Benjamin’s insights in The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproductivity provide a powerful lens through which to analyze short-form video as both a cultural and political phenomenon. Short-form video intensifies the capitalist tendencies Benjamin critiqued, reducing art to a tool for distraction and profit. Benjamin would have been extremely disappointed and pessimistic in the way the technologically reproductible art has evolved. The art form thus becomes more dangerous than film by aestheticizing politics in a more illusionary form.