For example, we all know La Guernica. It's a powerful piece. There is definitely something magical going on when you see it in person. A poster does not do it justice. Charlie talked about size in reproduction, and maybe the magic is in the fact that it is HUGE and in its own blank room. But maybe the magic is seeing Picasso's brush strokes and feeling it right in front of you, touchable at risk of sounding a very loud alarm. However, since not everyone can go to Madrid, is a poster a worthy second best? Benjamin says no, but technology allows Madrid to come to us, so I say yes.
I'm currently sitting in Faunce next to a brightly colored bulls-eye. It's large and a masterpiece by no standards but, the oil creates this texture that as it hits the light makes it shine. Now, if it were replaced by a poster, I would not get this feeling.
Also, I am definitely not a sports fan but I've been to a few Red Sox games and seen a few of them on tv. This limited viewing is enough to understand that the camera chooses the most boring parts of the game. I am more interested in the crowd singing Sweet Caroline and the baby about to get murdered by the person in front of him than Papi sauntering onto the field.
In movies, it is absolutely true that the director emphasizes things and creates the experience for the viewer. But, is that such a bad thing? In my opinion, Benjamin is giving a little too much credit to this whole "aura" thing. A painter can't direct the viewer through the painting as explicitly as a director can through a movie, but if he could, would he?
While I agree with his basic principles, Benjamin is simply putting a little to much emphasis on the true experience over the experience at all. While a poster is no substitute to the real thing, it's better than nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment