Laura Napolitano on Mechanical Reproduction

I found this article to be very interesting. It was hard to get through both times I read it (had to read it about 2 weeks ago for my media and culture class). I definitely agree with Benjamin's discussion about the "aura" changing or being completely lost once a work of art is reproduced. An example that was used in my other class is that of a musical performance. A concert by say, Dave Matthews Band, cannot be experienced more than once. The audio recording of their live performances cannot duplicate the sense of actually being there.

Similarly, works of art that were created hundreds, even thousands, of years ago have a different "aura" than they did when they were first created. Cave paintings, to use Benjamins example, were meant for the spirits or Gods that cavemen believed in at the time--something we can now only imagine. We can only compare our own current religious symbols to those paintings to only partially know the meaning of those paintings on the cave walls.

We may know what has happening at each point in history when a work of art was created, but we will never completely understand it because we haven't lived during the time period. Things are different in so many ways: culturally, socially, politically, economically, etc. Even today, a work of art has a different meaning to different audiences. An ancient Chinese painting has a completely different meaning to a Chinese citizen than it does to an American and vice versa. A Native American legend won't mean the same to someone of Cherokee descent as it does to someone of Flathead Salish descent, let alone to someone of a completely different culture like the Chinese.

Technology has made such an impression on art. In a sense, technology is an art in of itself. A still photography and films are works of art, but the subjects they portray do not do them justice. A documentary on Italy will never help us to completely understand what happened in the Colosseum or Pompeii thousands of years ago. Neither will a still photograph of the current city. Yes, both are art, but both are not an accurate representation of the culture as the subject. The "aura" has been changed.

Reproduction of Art

In the paper, Benjamin explains how our experience of the the art object is diminished in a number of ways. Primarily he talks about the invention of photography as something that somewhat diminishes art in that it means that images, rather than be painstakingly painted, can simply be snapped. Even in a situation where a photographer pays attention to composition, lighting, framing, and other techniques to elevate his photos to a type of art, the fact that it can easily be reproduced, and mass distributed diminishes some of the aura of seeing the original of say a painting in person. It becomes something that's easily googled. He also talks about how motion picture has also dimmed the aura of performance, comparing a movie to a stage performance. With a stage performance, the audience is able to see the entire space all of the time, as well as be constantly aware that what is before them is an illusion, relying on the performance of the actors to bring them into the world. However they can just as easily focus their attention anywhere else. In a movie, the view is through the camera, so we can only see what the camera sees, that is, what the filmmakers want. This gives us a more sterile, streamlined, and linear way of perceiving things.

Benjamin however also does say that mechanical reproduction can expand our experience of the art object. It's something I believe comes back to participatory art. Basically although taking a snapshot of something is a very easy and repeatable task, photographs can also be used to manipulate images, focus on specific things, such as distort or blur the view for the purpose of communicating a whole new message to be found in the original image.

Reproduction of Art

In his essay, Benjamin is critical of the modern technologies that enable anyone to essentially reproduce a work of art, namely through photography and film. He claims that a reproduction of a work of art does not give off the same sort of feel or authenticity of the original. It's "aura", as he coins it, is diminished in the productions of lookalikes and copies. Benjamin states that this is also the case with photography and film, and that such works of art produced via these methods does not exude the same aura of the subject. Hence, our experience of the "art object" is diminished.

Though anyone can really just pick up a camera and take a picture, it really does take a special eye to make a work of art in the field of photography and film. The photographer is able to enhance an image, or to make the viewer see the subject in a new, never-before-seen way. Does this not make the subject in itself new? Won't the image produced be original in its own accord, i.e., a work of art? It will exude its own aura, different from the subject. It does not necessarily lessen the value of the original, the subject. Nor is it to be considered inferior to the subject or original.

Though Benjamin claims that our experience is mostly diminished by mechanical reproduction through photography and film, they also serve as a way for art to reach the masses in ways though impossible. The speed at which photography and film is produced and brought to the masses is phenomenal. In other words, they bring art to the people on a large scale.

9/22 Reading Response

Benjamin claims the experience of the "art object" is diminished by tools of mechanical reproduction like photography and film. Benjamin points out the importance of an art object's originality and natural "aura", and explains how mass reproduction or replication of an art object diminishes this. I agree with this, if an artwork is replicated or reproduced, the original loses value. I don't just mean monetarily, it loses value in terms of originality and overall specialness.
Benjamin goes on to point out that the same tools of mechanical reproduction have also opened new doors for the "art object" as well. While the photograph may take away from an object's aura, it can be reproduced and distributed world wide. It can change our perception of the object, notice small details in things like texture that our eyes could not show us previously.

Technological Reproduction

Walter Benjamin argued that the aura of the "art object" is diminished by the technology allowing for its reproducibility. I don't necessarily agree with this because if one takes into account that they are looking at a reproduction it is possible to still get a sense of the "art object's" aura. However, you can't argue that an original has a more profound affect than a reproduction. Benjamin also says that the technology has expanded our experience of the "art object" by influencing and enlarging our perception. I agree with this in that with new technology in film and photography we have, in a way, trained our eyes to see differently and maybe more beautifully.

The Reproduction of Art

Cameras have expanded the possibilities of artistic expression while also limiting it in its authenticity and its value. Viewing something on the screen or in a photograph may enhance the beauty or appeal of the subject. One may gain a positive from a carefully taken shot. The photo/video may also improve the appearance of one, but is inconsistent and does not reflect 100%, the true value of the subject. As Walter Benjamin describes that a video or photographic reproduction of a subject diminishes its value and its "aura".  Aura is really the key word. Aura, the quality that emanates through the atmosphere around the subject it comes from. This is what is lost in a reproduction. One might look very nice in a picture, but you could never comprehend the entire person for what they are until you witness them first-hand.

Conwell Hall Dance Performance

I went to the show on friday and found it very unique. Art has always been known to me as a non-transforming object such as a painting, sculpture, etc. So it was a new experience seeing these people dance and maneuver themselves about the room in an expressive work of art. They used chalk and the projector screen to make their performance different. The room was dark which I didn't like, but it seemed to be appropriate with the vague and mysterious theme of the piece. The music was also interesting. There was classical music that brought on a sense of ease and comfort, and then they played an energetic and low-pitched techno type music that seemed to reflect an urgency of the dancers as they scrubbed at the projections on the floor. It was certainly a new experience for me and held my attention throughout. Many people would find this performance very odd as I did at first.