In the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction by Walter Benjamin talks about the mechanical process and what that did to art. How with the mechanical processes of reproduction how that changes art makes it better or worse. Under the topic of arguing weather print making and film photography are the same I would have to disagree in the early stages of film photography. When the first kind of film photography came out it was simply a photo of whatever the camera was pointed at. While print making you had time to create the print. What ever the artist choose to make they were able to create and reproduce. Photography didn't have that freedom until it was further developed. With the tools of various chemicals and better knowledge to the use of light, film photography became a little more creative. From that era on photographers were able to take their photo are craft it in their own way. Photography can be fiction and that was defiantly not how it was viewed for a very long time because of the inherent description of what photography does or was at that time.
This also ties into painting however. The reproduction of film photography and painting are in the same situation unlike prints. With film photography and painting with each new copy the artist has to have a part in creating, each painting has a new brush stroke that is slightly different from the last painting, same is true with the combination of a chemical cocktail that helped the photo come to life. Each is different, the works are all like sisters not twins. But with prints after the original all are reproduced mechanically to create like works that are just like the next.
In some ways, mass reproduction begins to devalue the original art piece. The experience an individual has with the art piece that provokes or targets a single emotion is the goal that each artist is trying to reach when they create something. That experience is special and happens when the work is seen but with the constant viewing of the work and that experience happening more with a work mass produced vs single production gets the viewer more exposed to the the work. Over time the work becomes common and devalued quickly as to a single painting that keeps that experience alive longer. Mass production gives the art work a shorted half life. At that point the original is no longer needed, if you have so many copies perhaps copies better then the original then why would you need the original. Asides from historic value the original would no longer have a value.
Hi Paige!
ReplyDeleteThe flow of your writing is so easy to follow, you transitioned really well from one point to the next. I also enjoyed that you brought up technical aspects of photography and film for your argument. However I noticed a little typo, in the end of your last sentence in the first paragraph you wrote defiantly instead of definitely. Since you end by talking about the reduction of an artwork’s value due to copies I want to ask, if something is truly beautiful to you personally, does it become less meaningful when others have or experience it too?
In art, its easy to take popular paintings for granted. That being said, photography, especially the early day of "moving" photography, has allowed us to view worlds and events never though possible. Though it could be argued photography is simply capturing a moment and film is creating one, it cannot be disputed that both of these are distant occurrences, that we will likely never see. However, the Van Goh painting isn't a once in a lifetime experience, its merely framed that way. The painting is still available, albeit very far away, and likely isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Though it would be nearly impossible to duplicate the painting exactly, touring the painting would be the next best option. Though that would require, possibly more work than needed for something that is commercially available.
ReplyDeleteHi Jamie in reply to your comment thank you I tried to flow all the questiona together as best as I could. Clearly not to killed at english so sorry for the typo. To answer your question no I don't think the if others have viewed it it changes how I view it but if I see the art piece all the time then perhaps I will no longer want to continue viewing the art work if another has over saturated the piece. I want to view the piece on my own time but if it is constantly being posted and I am always viewing it I will no longer want to.
ReplyDeleteHi Soarxisscared I'm gonna have to disagree with you when it come to the photography captures a moment. I think that is a common misconception about photography. Photography much like painting can and is fiction. Most of the time people believe photography is capturing the moment and that is false about photography you only see what is in frame about a situation the photographer has all control about everything when in come to what they include or not. Also I have to disagree with the idea about the Van Goh painting I think it is a ounce in a lifetime painting when you actually see it in person the problem with it these days is that people only see pictures of the painting witch takes away from the experience of the painting.
ReplyDelete