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.