Benjamin's essay is very valuable in that it takes a step back and recognizes the gigantic evolutionary leap (whether forward, sideways, or backwards) in art's relatively newfound reproducibility.
I think there is a give and take to the effects of this. Art used to be accessible only to the elite, whereas now it is much more widely known and appreciated. I agree with Charlie that the reproducibility can add to the aura. Before reproduction was widespread, only those that were physically close to the original art and interested in seeking it out would be exposed to it. Now anyone with a good internet connection can be inspired by art from 10,000 years ago to the present day. And when someone goes to MOMA and they stand in front of the Starry Night, an image which most have seem numerous times in reproduction, knowing that you are standing in front of the very canvas that Van Gogh painted is like meeting a celebrity. When art used to have more of an "aura," that was probably due to less art in everyday life, making the experience of seeing it that much more powerful. I feel like having a more creative environment with lesser highlights is still better than having a duller one with bright moments.
Another interesting thing to consider is that the essay was written in 1936. It would be interesting to know what he would think about the modern perception of art, or the posters sold en masse in front of the Ratty, or the films that are created in green screen where the filming of them barely resembles the finished product.
Molly Junck
No comments:
Post a Comment