Art In The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction Analysis

In Andre Bazin’s essay, “The Ontology of The Photographic Image”, he argues that one of the defining characteristics and inherent motivations in the production of art and artifacts, be it the mummification of Pharaohs, portraits of Kings and Emperors, is the ‘preservation of life by a representation of life’ (Bazin 238). He elaborates that at the heart of the plastic arts, such as painting and sculpture, is a need to make immortal the mortal and to turn the image of our flesh into clay, steel and paint. Bazin's essay touches on our need and motives to transform ourselves and preserve our being beyond its physical existence. He focuses on how photography is the purest form of capturing reality and how the arrival of cinema challenges itself with preserving life as it is or was, without the alteration and manipulation from editing.

For the scope of this essay there will be exploration into three main issues. Firstly, whether or not the desirability of art is in its—replicable—physical forum, or in its provenance. Next, the concept of and the extent to which revamped art can be considered

Photography and film are becoming more popular every day with people trying to one up each other and also trying to figure out new and inventive ways to use the camera. In Paul Strand’s essay Photography the New God, he wanted to make his point that photography was assessable to anyone and everyone and that man does all the work not the machine. In Extracts from the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin explains that works of art have always been easily reproduced for profit and how film will be the most powerful instrument when it comes to new forms of art. At one time to reproduce a work of art it was only to be used to practice the artist’s craft.

Although mainly associated with painting, Michael Canning also works in the mediums of drawing, printmaking and object making. It might be more appropriate to refer to him as “an artist” rather than “a painter”, but according to him, he is first and foremost “a sculptor”, that is, “interested in the history of materials as much as the history of art” (Canning 2011, 4).

This essay will explore the similarities and differences in the aforementioned eras by singling out 4 different examples from these eras and how these influenced or affected the society and patrons who commissioned these artworks at that time.

Two artworks, made of dissimilar mediums, may seem to be complete opposites, but when their content is closely analyzed prove to be very comparable.

Reproduction can be a double-edged sword. It takes away from the awe of standing in front of what the artist touched, maybe just hours beforehand. This is an incredible feeling. I have seen great works of art in person and there is nothing quite as inspiring in seeing King Tut’s exhibition rather than looking at it in the National Geographic. When I see the same thing in a magazine or book, I am reminded of how much greater the experience was to behold it in person. Reproduction does however link the world together by

Art has a long history in the evolution of modern mankind, from paint made of wet clay,to sculpture, and even to modern art. Some pieces are meant to symbolize an emotion or an object, to be used in the worship Gods,to tell stories or simply to be something beautiful. Throughout history, art has evoked emotions, awe, and has broken barriers and culture lines in ways nothing else could. Art can be influenced from everywhere; nature, emotions, neighboring cities and many other ways. Since so many culture influence each other, it is easy to see where similarities in pieces might be.

The status of the copy per se has an interesting history. Until the XIXth century, the rule for artists was to make the best possible copy. In Flandrin’s introduction discourse at the Academie des Beaux Arts, he sums up art history with only a few names, among them Phidias, Raphael, Ingres, and himself. The idea was to depict real life better than reality itself, and to copy the masters who had pursued this ideal for centuries. But as the years passed, and with the Romantic revolution, the uniqueness and the originality slowly became the new standard for artists and the public. The era of the individual

With the advent of the lithograph, whose origins lie in etching and engraving, works of art were beginning to lose their aura. Just as a written novel is not the same as the oral story from which it may

Whilst putting Adorno and Horkheimer’s essay, “The Culture Industry” and Benjamin’s “Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” into conversation, a debate had been sparked regarding the issue of artistic individualism and uniqueness. Although, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Benjamin all seem to agree that the aura of art is rapidly declining in today’s modern age, they seem to differ in classifying the reason behind it. The aura refers to the “one-timeness” of the experience of a certain object, which can be possessed only by the original work of art itself, and therefore cannot be reproduced.

Modern art has so starkly broken off from the millennia of art before it that it has thoroughly bewildered people. Until the late nineteenth century, most art contained intricate details and required innumerable hours of labor, whether the artist is meticulously chipping at a block of marble, carefully stroking paint onto a canvass, or painstakingly writing words on a page. Furthermore, the results was generally made to be pleasing to the viewer. But much of modern art strikes many viewers as not being art at all: It is merely random drips of paint on a canvass, or ordinary objects such as sticks arranged in a simple pattern, or even found objects on

In his article Benjamin criticizes the mechanical reproducing. In the beginning of his article Benjamin states that “a work of art has always been reproducible”; by student artist to practice, by masters, and by people who want to make profit. That was in the old times then he compares that with new “mechanical reproduction of work of art” which he thinks it is too excessive. “The Greek knew only two procedure of technically reproducing works of art: founding and stamping. Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins were the only art works which they could reproduce in quantity. All others were unique and could not be mechanically reproduced.” (Benjamin 2) He believes if something is unique then it should not be reproduced just like Greeks did in the old times. I really like how he lists and explains all other methods of reproducing which are; during the Middle Ages lithography was used then

Simply put, one can easily claim Levine’s recapture of Tenant Farmer Wife is a copy considering that it is an exact copy of Walker Evans’ Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife. It is crucial to distinguish this specific artwork, thereby allowing us to evaluate it differently. Conversely, J. L. Mott’s Bedfordshire model urinal, for instance, resembled that of the famous Duchamp’s Fountain as well; however, this artwork is essentially different considering that it is not entirely the same artwork, thereby following a different

Art will be made for the purpose of reproduction to reach the highest audience. The aura of an object will no longer matter because it will not be part of the class consciousness. As Benjamin brings up the debate of the cult value versus the exhibition value, the value of art will change so that it’s only function will be based on how many times it can be reproduced.