User:Ruben/RWRM/7 - Reproduction: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I | I. Reproduction<br> | ||
Works of art have always been reproducible. Replicas were made for practice, diffusion of the work or (obviously) for financial gain. Mechanical reproduction used to be limited, but of the ages its potential has grown - accelerating the last centuries. Its standard is now so that <span style="color:blue;">mechanical reproduction has reached a place among artistic processes.</span> | Works of art have always been reproducible. Replicas were made for practice, diffusion of the work or (obviously) for financial gain. Mechanical reproduction used to be limited, but of the ages its potential has grown - accelerating the last centuries. Its standard is now so that <span style="color:blue;">mechanical reproduction has reached a place among artistic processes.</span> | ||
II | II. Uniqueness<br> | ||
A reproduction lacks unique existence. <span style="color:green;"> → did Benjamin state that? Or did he say that uniqueness wasn't relevant anymore in the context of mechanical production?</span> <span style="color:blue;">The concept of authenticity requires the presence of the an original.</span> In manual reproduction (in which the copy is often degraded) the original was authentic and therefore kept its authority. | A reproduction lacks unique existence. <span style="color:green;"> → did Benjamin state that? Or did he say that uniqueness wasn't relevant anymore in the context of mechanical production?</span> <span style="color:blue;">The concept of authenticity requires the presence of the an original.</span> In manual reproduction (in which the copy is often degraded) the original was authentic and therefore kept its authority. | ||
Not so in mechanical reproduction as (1) <span style="color:blue;">Mechanical reproduction is more independent of the original</span> (ie. it has the ability to reveal things the original cannot - like slomo) and (2) mechanical reproduction enables the original to meet the beholder halfway. For a photograph of the Mona Lisa can be viewed in places the original cannot. | Not so in mechanical reproduction as (1) <span style="color:blue;">Mechanical reproduction is more independent of the original</span> (ie. it has the ability to reveal things the original cannot - like slomo) and (2) mechanical reproduction enables the original to meet the beholder halfway. For a photograph of the Mona Lisa can be viewed in places the original cannot. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
III | III. The Masses<br> | ||
The manner in which human sense production is organised is largely determined by historical context. <span style="color:blue;">Aura or natural objects is the unique phenomenon of distance, however close it may be </span> (watching at a mountain range or a flower). <span style="color:green;">→ a short description of the aura would be good</span> | The manner in which human sense production is organised is largely determined by historical context. <span style="color:blue;">Aura or natural objects is the unique phenomenon of distance, however close it may be </span> (watching at a mountain range or a flower). <span style="color:green;">→ a short description of the aura would be good</span> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
IV | IV. Shift in the work of art<br> | ||
The tradition of a work of art is variable and adaptive to time. <span style="color:blue;">The aura of a work of art cannot be seen separate from the ritual function of the work.</span> Therefore art reacted to the first revolutionary means of reproduction with l'art pour l'art: "a theology of art". | The tradition of a work of art is variable and adaptive to time. <span style="color:blue;">The aura of a work of art cannot be seen separate from the ritual function of the work.</span> Therefore art reacted to the first revolutionary means of reproduction with l'art pour l'art: "a theology of art". | ||
Revision as of 13:12, 18 February 2015
Annotation of Walter Benjamin - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
I. Reproduction
Works of art have always been reproducible. Replicas were made for practice, diffusion of the work or (obviously) for financial gain. Mechanical reproduction used to be limited, but of the ages its potential has grown - accelerating the last centuries. Its standard is now so that mechanical reproduction has reached a place among artistic processes.
II. Uniqueness
A reproduction lacks unique existence. → did Benjamin state that? Or did he say that uniqueness wasn't relevant anymore in the context of mechanical production? The concept of authenticity requires the presence of the an original. In manual reproduction (in which the copy is often degraded) the original was authentic and therefore kept its authority.
Not so in mechanical reproduction as (1) Mechanical reproduction is more independent of the original (ie. it has the ability to reveal things the original cannot - like slomo) and (2) mechanical reproduction enables the original to meet the beholder halfway. For a photograph of the Mona Lisa can be viewed in places the original cannot.
These changes jeopardize the authority of the original.
In the age of mechanical reproduction the aura of a work of art withers. Instead of a unique existence there is a plurality of objects. And because the reproduction meets the beholder/listener in his own particular situation it reactivates the object. → is 'reactivates' the best word for this? [HOW EXACLTY?]. This shattering of tradition, shifts the value of cultural heritage.
III. The Masses
The manner in which human sense production is organised is largely determined by historical context. Aura or natural objects is the unique phenomenon of distance, however close it may be (watching at a mountain range or a flower). → a short description of the aura would be good
Contemporary decay of aura rests on two things which are related to increasing significance of the masses: the desire to bring things 'closer' and the masses' bent towards overcoming the uniqueness of everyday life [WHAT IS HE POINTING AT?] by accepting its reproduction.→ accepting that daily life is more and more involved with the results of mechinal reproduction?
IV. Shift in the work of art
The tradition of a work of art is variable and adaptive to time. The aura of a work of art cannot be seen separate from the ritual function of the work. Therefore art reacted to the first revolutionary means of reproduction with l'art pour l'art: "a theology of art".
"Mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual." Art becomes designed for reproducibility. "But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics."