Friday, September 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
art in the age of mechanical reproduction...
http://www.lilithgallery.com/arthistory/modern/The-Work-of-Art-in-the-Age-of-Mechanical-Reproduction.html
Even before I began reading this article, i was dreading reading something so lengthy off of my computer screen. After finishing the reading, I found my preconceived prejudice towards the assignment both interesting and relevant. The article talks about how a reproduced piece of artwork (or in this case, text) can sometimes seem unimportant and for lack of a better word, cheap. "Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was usually branded as a forgery, the original preserved all its authority." I sort of felt the same way about the digital version of this article. I felt like i wasn't reading the original or i wasn't reading it the way it was intended to be read, therefore changing how i felt about the piece. I felt cheated out of the real thing. This being said, i think the author, Benjamin, presented good points about how reproductions are compromised versions of originals, but as i read on, i realized that he really just lost me when he started saying WAY too much on the subject, loosing his point a little and beginning to drone on monotonously.
Benjamin also suggests that photography and film are forms of reproduction. Yes, yes i understand the age-old debate on wether photo and film are forms of art is still prevalent, but, being an intended photo major with an intense interest in film, I have no doubt in my mind that they are in fact forms of art. Just as a painter uses paint or a sculpter uses clay, a photographer uses a camera. However, he later redeems himself by providing evidence that it takes a creative and artistic person to shoot insightful and effective photographs.
Overall, i think that Banjamin provided some interesting points to ponder, but really got to flowery and arduous with his writing, therefore loosing his point and the strength of his opinion.
Even before I began reading this article, i was dreading reading something so lengthy off of my computer screen. After finishing the reading, I found my preconceived prejudice towards the assignment both interesting and relevant. The article talks about how a reproduced piece of artwork (or in this case, text) can sometimes seem unimportant and for lack of a better word, cheap. "Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was usually branded as a forgery, the original preserved all its authority." I sort of felt the same way about the digital version of this article. I felt like i wasn't reading the original or i wasn't reading it the way it was intended to be read, therefore changing how i felt about the piece. I felt cheated out of the real thing. This being said, i think the author, Benjamin, presented good points about how reproductions are compromised versions of originals, but as i read on, i realized that he really just lost me when he started saying WAY too much on the subject, loosing his point a little and beginning to drone on monotonously.
Benjamin also suggests that photography and film are forms of reproduction. Yes, yes i understand the age-old debate on wether photo and film are forms of art is still prevalent, but, being an intended photo major with an intense interest in film, I have no doubt in my mind that they are in fact forms of art. Just as a painter uses paint or a sculpter uses clay, a photographer uses a camera. However, he later redeems himself by providing evidence that it takes a creative and artistic person to shoot insightful and effective photographs.
Overall, i think that Banjamin provided some interesting points to ponder, but really got to flowery and arduous with his writing, therefore loosing his point and the strength of his opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)