Benjamin raises interesting questions about the effects of mechanical reproduction on the aura and authority of an original piece of art. In our digital age, the effects of mechanical reproduction are more widespread than ever and may even make certain masterpieces seem commonplace. How would the artist behind such pieces feel knowing that their work is accessible to anyone in the world, but can only be viewed on the flattened 13-inch-screen of a laptop? Viewing art in this manner doesn't provoke audiences to question the authenticity of a piece. In this sense, I would agree with Benjamin's sentiment that mass reproduction can have a diminishing effect on the aura of a work of art. However, I do not believe such digital or even mechanical reproductions are intended to replace the original, and should not be interpreted as attempts to do so.
Also, Benjamin seems conflicted concerning photography and how it operates as an art form. He claims that the products of film and photography are always depreciated, for example, a landscape scene in the middle of a film is easily overlooked. I can see how this rule might operate within today's films, because it will always be difficult to capture the sense of space that one can obtain by actually experiencing nature. However, photography and film are valuable as they can bring into view sights impossible for the naked eye, capturing parts of the universe, small and large, that are only accessible to a camera lens.
-Jocelyn
No comments:
Post a Comment