|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Walter Benjamin: The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction'''
| |
|
| |
|
| Section 1:
| |
| In principle a work of art has always been reproducible (imitations: practice, diffusing, gaining by third parties).
| |
| Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new. The techniques of reproduction improves and it gives access to the market in large numbers and in daily changing forms.
| |
| With the improvement or invention of every technique it freed humans of labour. By 1900 technical reproduction had reached a standard; to reproduce all transmitted works of art. This has a huge impact on daily live. Reproduction by then became a artistic practice on itself.
| |
|
| |
| For example because of mechanical reproduction I don't have to see the real Mona Lisa. Instead I can see it in its reproductive form and from multiple spaces for example at home. Me myself can copy or alter a copy of a Mona Lisa into something else (Warhol).
| |
|
| |
| - founding and stamping
| |
| - woodcut; art became mechanically reproducible
| |
| - printing
| |
| - lithography
| |
| - photography (freed the hand, could keep pace with speech)
| |
| - sound
| |
|
| |
| Section 2:
| |
| A reproduction is lacking one element:
| |
| Its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.
| |
| The unique existence an art work determined its place in history mediated by the time of its existence = historical value (?) --> copy lacks this
| |
| - physical conditions
| |
| - track of ownership
| |
|
| |
| A prerequisite (voorwaarde; een vereiste) for authenticity is to (to have) the original. The original preserved/keeps authority. But mechanical reproduction can bring out or point out other 'stuff' (in favor of manual reproduction).
| |
| 1) its more independent. For example photography can make a more accurate copy, second it can also go escape/beyond natural vision (what we can see with our eyes). It can transform into something else.
| |
| 2) techn. reproduction can bring a copy to other places and in another form.
| |
|
| |
| Despite the advantages of the copy, it an never reach the same status as the original. It will always have a less value.
| |
| Authenticity is a essence (voorwaarde/basis) of all that is transmissible from its beginning (testimony or journey & history which it has experienced).
| |
| And what is really jeopardized when historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object.
| |
|
| |
| An artwork has an aura. And what is lost with mechanical reproduction is the aura of a work of art. A reproduction loses its characteristics. For example a photograph of a painting whether it is good or bad will always be different (the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition).
| |
|
| |
| Section 3:
| |
| During history the way we see/perceive the world and see our place in it. This is influenced naturally but also by historical events. The aura is altered both by a natural development(?) as through social causes.
| |
|
| |
| Section 4:
| |
| Aura/uniqueness is 'stable', but the context where the work of art in acts can be different.
| |
|
| |
| Because of the aura an unique work of art can become an object of a magical or religious cult. These works of art originated in the service of a ritual (magical, religious). The aura of these works is never entirely separated from its ritual function.
| |
