Reaction Response to Walter Benjamin and the film “Shadow Magic”
“One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced.”
- Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936)
Benjamin is saying that reproductions reduce the integrity of the art because the product is no longer authentic. Benjamin also speaks of “aura- a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art.” (1936). according to him this is missing in works that have been reproduced or produced indirectly, i.e. a copy of a painting or a photograph. I think that the value of art is in the art itself and the use of it to express one’s inner goals and desires. Benjamin also speaks of the “shattering of tradition” that he believes is caused by the loss of authenticity of art in its original form. I believe that while there would have been a certain intimacy between the artist and the subject in the past. That does not exist today due to technology. We now can take thousands of photos a day, whereas 150 years ago a person may have sat for a portrait for a few hours. Reproductions while devaluing both the integrity and price of a piece of art, is a necessary price to pay for the
Two copies of the painting, each of that are exhibited and reproduced as authentic works by Benjamin West, square measure within the urban center deposit of Art. However, in articles written by a former director for that deposit, Fiske Kimball, the previous director queries whether or not these 2 paintings are literally copies. The articles were revealed in 1931 and 1932, and art historians currently believe that the 2 originals currently suspend elsewhere (Von Erffa,
Furthermore, he considers secondary sources in interpreting and analyzing the different artists’ paintings. Baxandall examines the importance of contracts, where marketing negotiations are made between an artist and their client. This includes detailed aspects in the content of the painting, the quantity and quality of materials used in the painting and the cost for labor in making the piece. He argues that although a painting is convincing and strong, the painting could, however, be reduced to nothing more than a constructional argument between the buyer and the seller. This is done by explaining the mechanics through which the Renaissance artists went about to develop their talent. A painting in Italy during that period resulted in a social relationship between the painter, who produced the picture, and the client, who provided the funding and ultimately used the artwork. He clearly suggests that the great materials and effort placed into an art piece provide the groundwork for an
Specifically, he notes if the similar work is well done and has aesthetic value. Essentially he argues that forgeries do not indeed lose any aesthetic value, because they are in fact well-crafted and executed but rather, compromise the nonaesthetic standard of judgment (92). The piece of art, regardless of its quality, loses its extrinsic value. It is no longer considered a trademark of its society, there is no novelty in regards to a historical artistic period. Without this nonaesthetic standard of judgment, a forgery thus becomes inferior. He notes that it is not primarily due to the fact that a successful forgery is deceitful and tricks novice audience and expert critics alike. Yet, it exacerbates the quality of intangibility and mystic that gives a piece of art aesthetic value, which makes critical analysis of art seem to lack logical, concrete reasoning. A key nonaesthetic value that becomes questioned is the idea of originality. The concept of originality is tangible and thus gives authentic pieces ‘imaginative novelty’ (97), which has no regards to aesthetic value. Everything created is original as another object of the type will never exist. Whether one piece looks identical to another is not a testament to its originality, because all things created are original. Lessing makes this point and mentions that maybe the term individuality should be more
When in an art gallery that displays oil paintings from the Renaissance era, one might by mystified as to the true interpretation of such paintings. The majority of people today are unaware that they do not view oil paintings the way they were traditionally meant to be viewed. As we admire them, do we ever stop to analyze why they were painted in the first place, and for whom they were they painted for? By understanding why oil paintings depict certain things, consequently our view and interpretation of them will alter. Oil paintings were a luxury only the wealthy could partake in, seeking out artists that would be able paint their possessions in the most realistic way. Anthropologist Levi-Strauss comments “… rich Italian merchants looked upon painters as agents, who allowed them to confirm their possession of all that was beautiful and desirable in the world.” (qtd. in. Berger 86). It was the wealthy who ultimately instructed the artist what to paint, usually a possession they desired to be put on canvas. In John Berger’s book Ways of Seeing, he writes “Oil paintings often depict things. Things which in reality are buyable. To have a thing painted and put on a canvas is not
when creating a copy of an animal or human. It can also occur in nature; which happens when
With images, words, and sounds been almost endlessly reproduced and distributed, various critics of modern culture suggest that traditional ideas about art and authenticity are no longer applicable. The problem is said to have been noticed back in the 1930s in the popular essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction that was concerned about what would happen to the “aura” of unique works of art when photography and other techniques if anybody could make unlimited copies of images. With the rise of digital technology, copying ability became vast and complex and hence the idea of originality is thrown into
The earliest forms of art had made it’s mark in history for being an influential and unique representation of various cultures and religions as well as playing a fundamental role in society. However, with the new era of postmodernism, art slowly deviated away from both the religious context it was originally created in, and apart from serving as a ritual function. Walter Benjamin, a German literary critic and philosopher during the 1900’s, strongly believed that the mass production of pieces has freed art from the boundaries of tradition, “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependance on ritual” (Benjamin 1992). This particular excerpt has a direct correlation with
Re-made and re-carved works have been around for hundreds of years as artists take inspiration from whom the original was recreated. In Roman art history, certain artists would re-make Roman portraits to honor those before them. However, this was not always the case as individuals would destroy and damage art as a damnation of memory. What determined our understanding of the specific work depended on why the remade or re-carved work was created. These re-made and re-carved artworks revealed a deeper meaning about the individual, culture and the society for whom the original was recreated.
The Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland once said, “Cloning is great. If God made the original, then making copies should be fine.” (Douglas Coupland Quotes) Cloning can refer to a number of processes, but is generally understood to mean creating an exact copy of a biological organism. For example, Scottish researchers created a lamb named Dolly from the udder cells of another sheep. (Cloning Fact Sheet) However, cloning can also refer to growing organs from existing cells. The issue for cloning is that creating a whole organism is expensive and goes against most religions. While this is true, cloning organs can offer people transplants in a cheap and legal manner.
Nature has never given the man the opportunity to have an identical self. Instead, we come out as unrepeatable images of ourselves (Elliot, 1998). In the world, we are unique and having an exact copy regarding physical appearance and genetic makeup is impossible. Therefore, each one of us is unique in the world. Further, we have no alternative of procreating rather than the usual biological way. Therefore there is the need to have a way through which we can create copies of ourselves so that we have other “persons” who look exactly like us and whom we have control over.
“forgery is a concept that can be made meaningful only by reference to the concept of originality, and hence only to art viewed as a creative, not as a reproductive or technical, activity. The element of performance or technique in art cannot be an object for forgery because technique is not the kind of thing that can be forged. Technique is, as it were, public.”
Art is removed from any notion of real truth, an inherently flawed copy of an already imperfect world. Art as an imitation is irrelevant to what is real.
'It quickly emerged that the proper and unique area of competence of each art coincided with all that was unique to the nature of its medium. The task of self-criticism became to eliminate from the effects of each art any and every effect that might conceivably be borrowed from or by the medium of any other art. Thereby each art would be rendered 'pure', and in its 'purify' find the guarantee of its standards of quality as well as of its independence. 'Purity' meant self-definition, and the enterprise of self-criticism in the arts became one of self-definition, with a vengeance.'
Much of what Benjamin discusses in his essay has to do with what he describes as the “aura” or spirit of an artwork. He discusses this spirit and how it is obtained, lost, given and received. He suggests that the aura of an artwork we know and understand today is much different from how it was understood in the time and place of its production. The aura Benjamin speaks of is obtained because of the artwork’s uniqueness and authenticity, which in turn is lost due the act of mass production. In describing this
Adorno contrasts Benjamin’s theory. Adorno, in his writings states that he believes technology and the ability to recreate pieces of work has no possible positive repercussions. Adorno believes that the ability to recreate something destroys the originality and value of the piece, but unlike Benjamin , Adorno sees no benefit in art forms being more widely available through the ability to record and reproduce copies of such pieces, is not beneficial to the piece in any means. Adorno believes that