Week 3 The Aura
Reading "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" has really opened my eyes to how mechanical reproduction has impacted the art industry. To quote Walter Benjamin, "The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being embedded in the fabric of tradition" Arts traditions give the art its value, as it is the culmination of decades of experimentation and passing down methods. Not only this, but certain charms and imperfections of the original are lost in a reprint. A great example of this are pieces that use impasto, such as Vincent van Goghs "Starry Night". Impasto is a technique that uses thick brush strokes, whose depth can be seen throughout the piece, Yet in many reprints of impasto pieces, the quality that made them more visually dynamic is lost. All of the small imperfections and techniques used to make the original give it an "aurora". Looking at the original piece can either provide a sense of connection with the artist or it can have the opposite effect as the original piece may not hold up to the retouched common place reprint. For example, seeing the constitution in the National Archives Building felt rather disappointing. The images I had seen in textbooks throughout the years made it appear much bigger and cleaner and seeing the original was much smaller and harder to read than I anticipated.
In the same way photographs of statues do not do statues justice, photos of art pieces do not do the pieces justice. One of the positives of the commercialization however, is how those who cannot afford to see the original can still see it in some form overseas. Though this shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Art should be enjoyed, not hoarded.One of the only reasons the art is so highly idealized to begin with is because the art is expensive. The other reason the art is so valued is because there are very few originals and some pieces require special attention to protect them from the outside elements. Its only logical that capitalism would sell affordable duplicates to the masses and raise the price of the original.
Hey Nathan, I agree with you on your views of how art earns it aura and how it can be lost through reproduction. No copy of "Starry Night" will be the same as the original since its lacks the textures, color values, its age and more in which makes the piece so famous. Same goes along with what you stated with a photo of a statue. It may be nice to take a picture of the work to keep for yourself as a memory of the moment, but to reproduce that photo and to try and treat it like it is as good as the original does not have the same effect. Even though duplicates of original art does not have the same aura, do you think they make it easier for people to see and appreciate the work when they are not able to see the main art piece or do you think people should just enjoy the original?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the duplicate photographs don't do the originals justice. But having the image available to us is important because not all of us have the access to see these original works like you pointed out. It is also a great point you have made that the tradition of passing down methods in our originals are being lost along with the connection with the artist through these reprints. It is important that people realize the importance of originals.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to spread traditions to trustworthy people, so these methods don't die out within a generation or fade through the family years. With the changing times, new traditions are also brewing, and its just as important to acknowledge those as it is the older methods of the creative process.
DeleteGreat post, Nathan. You brought up some really good points. When looking at an object a human eye is able to view things in 3-D and catch the tiniest of details. We are able to perceive how an item might feel to the touch and notice imperfections which get lost in translation when the artwork gets copied onto a piece of paper. No matter what, a camera or a printer are only able of producing and reproducing flat replicas. Those rough textures of impasto or distinctive smooth details of a statue vanish in their 2-D reproductions. You are right. Photographs may not cause an art piece any justice, but they do allow for the spread and awareness of the piece.
ReplyDeleteOne of the positives of having these 3D semi duplicates of the original work, is that the originals can be returned to their country of origin without any issue. Granted people may never see the original, but they weren't really meant to see it in the first place. Perhaps technology will even advance to the point where we can even replicate the flaws of a piece, only time will tell.
Delete