This week's class got me thinking about the difference between "high art" or the original work and reproduced art, as discussed by Benjamin. I can agree with and understand the argument that high art offers a distant and a-social viewing experience while reproduced art is more of an absorbing, social experience. However, I am struggling with the concept of the loss of the aura of art during reproduction. I think that it is important to consider the context in which the reproduction piece is being viewed, and to consider the life experience of the person viewing that reproduction. While viewing the original Mona Lisa may be a "wow" moment for most people, we must also consider that viewing a reproduction in certain contexts may also be a "wow" experience for others.
For example, my grama is old now and she hasn't really travelled much in her life. My parents and I have had the opportunity to see "authentic and original" pieces of art in the world (such as the Taj Mahal). Whenever we view one of these things, we always send her a post card or bring back a souvenir replica of what we saw. For her, she can view that postcard or that replica with the same kind of awe, and it will have the same kind of aura as the original. For her, there is no loss of awe between the two, and the reproduction has not been liquidated of it's original value. Therefore, I think that Benjamin's piece needs to account for the context in which different people will be viewing these original and reproduced pieces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that what you are sayng is really intriguing. It is true that the reproduction of art has its benefits. But I think what Benjamin was getting at, was that the whole tenor of art changed with photography (p. 226-7). Also, he was not implying that this change was a bad thing. And Benjamin was right; our understanding of art has changed -- which is what allows for your grama to enjoy art in her own and legitimate way.
Post a Comment