In fact, this particular essay is actually an introduction to one of Benjamin's translations of

Charles Baudelaire, the French poet, so Benjamin is translating the French poet but laying one of
his particular books, Tableau Parisien, into German, and in the process of that translation, he is
writing an introduction to his own translation of Baudelaire in German, so what we are reading
in fact is also a product of translation. We are reading Walter Benjamin in English; the essay was
originally written in German, so we are also, in this particular case, reading the product of
translation.

Walter Benjamin, in this particular essay, while introducing his own translation, delves on what
exactly the title of the essay tells us. He is talking about, He is debating the actual task of the
translator, and Benjamin, as I said, has very radical ideas about what the actual task of a
translator should be, not what it is all the time, but what a translator should focus on and what a
translator should keep in mind while doing a translation. What is the function code of a translator
in the process of translation? What is the purpose of a transmitter in the process of Okay, so I've
introduced the author, introduce essay.
Now let's move on to the arguments. Walter Benjamin starts off with a very interesting statement:
Benjamin is saying that the consideration of the reader or this spectator in appreciating a work of
art is never fruitful. In other words, Benjamin is saying that while appreciating a particular work
of art, be it a book, a poem, or a painting, A dance or a song while appreciating a work of art
considering what the reader thinks about it is not relevant. Why is it not relevant? Because,
according to Benjamin, poems are not written for readers, paintings are not made for spectators
or viewers, and songs are not sung for an audience. The idea seems counterintuitive, but please
understand the philosophy behind it. Benjamin believes that art is the highest mode of safe
expression. Art is the highest mode of self-expression where the reader or audience is not really
relevant. Think about it: why do we sing songs? Do we always sing songs to please an audience?
Do we necessarily write poems to please a reader? Benjamin says, and I'm quoting, that this is a
very important client. I am quoting from Benjamin. Say Benjamin says no point is intended for
the reader, no picture for the beholder, no symphony for the listener. In appreciation of a work of
art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful, so Benjamin believes that
art in itself has an independent existence. Art is like a living thing. Any art form is like a living
thing, and it has an independent existence, its existence, its appreciation; it's life is not
necessarily tied to a particular reader, a particular audience, or a particular listener to a particular
Symphony. The work of art exists by itself for itself; it is created for itself; it is created as a need
for self-expression; it is not created to please someone else, to please the reader, to please the
audience; it is the spectator that is Benjamin's first contention, so a particular point Think about a
particular poem that has been written not with the reader in mind. No poem Benjamin says is
intended for the reader, then Benjamin asks with mock innocence, If the original is not intended
for the reader, why should the translation be intended for the reader? Think about this point.
What is our general understanding of the process of translation or the purpose of translation?
Why does a translator translate? This is the question. What is the job of a translator? Why is a
translator taking up a particular text and translating it into another language? The common sense
answer to this question is that the normal intuitive answer to this question, Why does a translator
translate?, would be that a translator translates to bring the original to a readership who cannot
read the original. The translator is translating with the intention of bringing the original text
written in a foreign language to a readership who is not acquainted with that foreign language
and therefore cannot read the original text. Therefore, the common sense interpretation The
common sense approach to the task of a translator is that the translator is translating for a reader,
and Walter Benjamin is questioning this very basis of translation. Walter Benjamin is saying that
if the original was not written for the translator, read for a reader, written with a reader in mind,
why would the translation be done with the reader in mind? If pleasing a reader was not the
consideration of the original text, if it is truly a work of art, then why should the translator focus
on pleasing the reader? What happens when the translator focuses on the reader for translation?
What happens when the translator gives the reader in mind the target reader in mind and
produces a translation that is easily digestible that is easily a simile that can be easily
assimilated? What happens, according to Benjamin, is bad translation. Why bad translation?
Because remember, the original was never meant to please a particular reader, so if the translator
is translating with the readership in mind, just the readership in mind, the translator is doing a
bad job. That is the first point: a translation done with the reader in mind is a bad translation. The
task of the translator, according to Walter Benjamin, is not to please any particular target
readership; the target readership is secondary in translation. That is my first point, which is
Benjamin's second point, and this is what Benjamin writes about in the second paragraph of the
essay. What does a work of art contain? What is the value of that work of art? Is it the message
that it contains? If it is that message that is communicated through the work of art, if that is
primary, if the content of the message is primary, then a story—the same story told by me, told
by you, told by some random John, and told by William Shakespeare—will have the same value.
Think about this: the story of magnets. We all know the story of magnets. I can merit to you the
story of Magnet. Charles Lamb and Mary Lamb can narrate to you the story of magnets. William
Shakespeare can narrate to you the story of Magnet. The story will remain the same, the message
will remain the same, and the content will remain the same, but will these three narrations have
the same artistic value? Think of it. Benjamin's answer is obviously no because a work of art is
not about what is being said; a work of art is not about what is being communicated, the
message, but about how it is being sent. These two things are very different. The work of art
becomes our work of art, not because of what it is saying, not because of the communication, not
because of the message that it holds, but because of how it is being said. William Shakespeare
tells the same story very differently than I would and that is why she explains Shakespeare right
so not about the content not about the message but about how that message is being
communicated Benjamin is coming to his second point Benjamin is saying a translation that
merely focuses on conveying the message of the original to the readership a translation that
merely focuses on communicating the message of the original to the readership is a bad
translation because the message according to Benjamin is secondary message according to Ben
Benjamin is inconsequential what is important is how that message has been communicated in
the original so first the first point was a translation which focuses on the readership focuses on
pleasing the rita is a bad translation because the original was never meant to please the region
point number two is that a translation that merely focuses on communicating a message
conveying a message that the original has is a bad translation because that is not what makes the
original the work of art that it is not the message but how the message has been communicated I
will quote Benjamin once again. Benjamin says this is Benjamin sense. This is what Benjamin
says about translations that focus on communicating the message. Benjamin calls it that this
actually is the cause of another characteristic of inferior translation which consequently we may
define as the inaccurate transmission of an innocent Shalom content so the in essential content
messages the in essential content and if the translator is primarily focusing on that the Prime the
task of the according to Benjamin the translator is not fulfilling his or her true task now comes
the question is pleasing the readership is not the translator stars if communicating the message
that is in the original is not the translator star said what is the task of the translator according to
Walter Benjamin that is the question that Benjamin belongs but for today we ain't here I will
request you to read obviously as much as you can I request you to read up the material that I am
sharing over Watsa as much as you can and will come back tomorrow evening and we'll talk
about what according to Benjamin is the task of the translator thank you