A: According to Benjamin, Aura springs from the work's "original use value," and it quantified by the work's "uniqueness," which provides the viewer with an authentic experience. The Aura of a work of art is only present in the original, meaning that by Benjamin's definition, some art is necessarily excluded from posessing Aura (those works which have no original object and are reproductions of themselves). Benjamin further posits that the "uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being embedded in the fabric of tradition." Although Benjamin never gives a direct definition of Aura, his clues encourage extrapolation. We can assume that, according to his definition, Aura increases exponentially over time, bridges past to present, and is dependent on context. The latter can be inferred from Benjamin's connection between Aura and the cultural history of the society from whence the object sprang.
Q: In Benjamin's mind, what effects did mechanical reproduction, such as film and the camera/photography, have on a viewer's perception of art?
A: In Benjamin's view, reproduction meant the death of Aura. A work of art that has no original (such as a photograph-- endlessly reproducible from the negative) has no Aura. He was a firm believer in the power of the original, presumably due to the presence of the artist's hand. In his seminal article, Benjamin notes that the public has had a progressive response towards film, while the general reception of contemporary fine art has been reactionary. This is directly related to the camera's ability to present the audience with a more direct representation of real life. Painting and sculpture, on the other hand, experienced a great shift towards abstraction at the dawn of the 20th century, and were therefor not as easily accessible (both physically and conceptually) to the general public. Benjamin claims that this shift in art was made not only out of a spirit of exploration, but as a defense mechanism; artists began spouting the ideals of 'art for art's sake' in order to "deny the the social function of art" so that they would not be usurped by the advent of the camera. While this shift has lead to the proliferation of many different artistic movements, it has also cut fine art off from the common man, and made it a more intellectual activity.
Q:What is meant by the passage: "For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual."
A: Benjamin's use of the word 'ritual' is curious, but he seems to equate it with the social function of art. Historically, art has been used as a social signifier, an historic document, or a record of cultural mythologies (I would include religious art in this latter category). With the birth of the camera, artists were no longer chained to representation; the camera is capable of recording form, light and shadow more faithfully than the artist. With this new technology, artists could begin to paint abstractly, and the resulting artwork began to take on a more expansive, exploratory feel.
Q:What mechanically or otherwise reproductive processes are changing the face of art today?
A: The proliferation of technology has begun to dramatically shift the face of art. Unlike the turn of the last century, however, the locus of the art world has shifted from the canvas to the screen, from the studio to the everyday environment. Video, Auto cad, laser printing, 3d printing, gaming, online social networks, 3d movies, and mobile technology are just a few of the technologies that have shaped the face of the art world over the last thirty years.
No comments:
Post a Comment