Week 1 Reflection and Response
Art is such a vague term as in today's day and age there are so many different forms. In this new digital age, art now can take its shape in even more forms, not only including films and photographs but also creating memes and transforming traditionally known art into something completely different. Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction looks at, and discusses how those traditional art forms have been shaped and transitioned into newer forms through technology. He mentions how art has always been able to be reproduced (Benjamin, 1969) which is evident even more so nowadays. There are more options than ever with the introduction of digital media. Anything can be transformed with a click of a button. However, with this comes significant change. These newer technologies can sometimes replace older art forms. For example, Benjamin (1969) talks about how Lithography was revolutionary during its time as it "enabled graphic art to illustrate everyday life". Then a few decades later photography surpassed it.
Additionally, with the art being reproduced in all sorts of different forms, there are multiple different views towards what is being presented. This means the original piece of art may exhibit a different response from the audience (whether it be the intended response or not), whereas a reproduced version may produce a completely different response depending on how the artist has chosen to present their new piece. Benjamin (1969) discusses this as he mentions how certain technologies have the capability to reach such heights, original art cannot. For example, a photograph can capture aspects of the original that is impossible for the naked up to pick up on. However, Benjamin (1969) also states that while mechanical reproduction has its pros, it also causes the quality to depreciate due to the lack of authenticity. I would have to disagree with this as I believe all forms of art can be authentic, regardless of whether it has been mechanically reproduced or created from scratch. It still has the ability to convey meaning and produce a response from an audience.
Overall, the main concept of this piece demonstrates how new technology has ability for art to be mass produced, which is supposably a negative thing because it somehow affects the quality of the art. I feel it can be quite subjective because these new technologies and mechanical reproductions allow more avenues for art to be created, which I believe is a good thing. While I understand the point being made, as a lot of the entertainment industry comes with mass produced work (which isn't always good and occasionally a money grab), it shouldn't take away from the positives. The world could always use more art.
Additionally, with the art being reproduced in all sorts of different forms, there are multiple different views towards what is being presented. This means the original piece of art may exhibit a different response from the audience (whether it be the intended response or not), whereas a reproduced version may produce a completely different response depending on how the artist has chosen to present their new piece. Benjamin (1969) discusses this as he mentions how certain technologies have the capability to reach such heights, original art cannot. For example, a photograph can capture aspects of the original that is impossible for the naked up to pick up on. However, Benjamin (1969) also states that while mechanical reproduction has its pros, it also causes the quality to depreciate due to the lack of authenticity. I would have to disagree with this as I believe all forms of art can be authentic, regardless of whether it has been mechanically reproduced or created from scratch. It still has the ability to convey meaning and produce a response from an audience.
Overall, the main concept of this piece demonstrates how new technology has ability for art to be mass produced, which is supposably a negative thing because it somehow affects the quality of the art. I feel it can be quite subjective because these new technologies and mechanical reproductions allow more avenues for art to be created, which I believe is a good thing. While I understand the point being made, as a lot of the entertainment industry comes with mass produced work (which isn't always good and occasionally a money grab), it shouldn't take away from the positives. The world could always use more art.
His point about the authenticity of art seems to be a function of how many people can interact with it. See it, in the case of painting or sculpture, hear it for music. So, automatically, as soon as more than one person sees or hears the art (or even smells it or interacts with it in some other way) its authenticity is diminished. Benjamin uses the example of movies, where it takes about nine million views to have a film break even. (Given that to break even, a film's box office has to be five times its budget, you can come up with a formula to work out the lowest number of viewers for a break even point, and thus how diminished in authenticity a film is.)
ReplyDeleteBut an orchestra of 60 people is playing to at leat 60 people, which automatically lowers the authenticity of the piece being performed. Add an audience and the authenticity decreases even more. Record it or broadcast it to even more people and the authenticity decreases even more than that. The same with movies.
What, then, of George Miller's idea of 'collective dreaming'. The idea that an audience all seeing a movie at the same time adds to the experience of the movie for everyone? If Benjamin is right, this doesn't add authenticity, but if Miller is right, it adds something.
Maybe this is how Fascism relates to art. (I have to admit to being a bit startled when Benjamin got started on Fascism.) If Fascism operates mostly on the proletarian masses, and they're all seeing, hearing, (for architecture) living in and possibly even smelling the same thing, that thing's authenticity is reduced to the infinitesimal. The art has no aura in the sense Benjamin means it.
I could go on, but what have you ever done to me?
I agree with you that more avenues for art is a good thing. More and more people have access to the materials they need to create art, whether digital or traditional, and in my mind this can only be a good thing. I also agree with you that art is a very vague term these days. It’s a lot like the word ‘literature’ which is often assigned to The Great Works that we should apparently revere but which in my mind is just as applicable to fanwork.
ReplyDelete