Walter Benjamin states that each individual work of art retains its own unique force - an "aura." He further explains that this "aura" mainly exists through the uniqueness and originality of a creation. When printing technology and photography were developed, it became possible to mechanically reproduce art and create a perfect replica of a copy of a copy of a copy. The reproduction of art destroys its originality and, thereby, its "aura." Though Benjamin insists that the loss of an "aura" is a good thing (i.e. for political benefit), what does mechanical reproduction do to the value of an art and its title as "art"?
I personally believe that mechanical reproduction does not destroy but instead expands the definition of art. The focus of art becomes not in the material but in the immaterial - the context, the conceptual, the meaning. This is not a bad thing. However, it is true that the shift in what is being presented to how it is being presented creates an even harder criteria for what is good or bad art. At the same time, it becomes increasingly harder to impress.
In our assignment for "Translation, Imitation, Emulation," our interpretations of the original works of art can indeed be considered an "art" of its own. There is definitely a lack of originality, which may not impress some spectators, but interpretation is in itself a creative process of production and so I consider it to be art. In fact, parody (or satire) is a form of art I personally highly revere.
Essentially, though the emphasis is on the conceptual, good art still needs to be founded upon mastery of technical skill. This is partially why I, for the "Translation, Imitation, Emulation" assignment, decided to focus on works by the traditional and classical artist of the Renaissance, Michelangelo!!! (The Mona Lisa is just a bonus...)
No comments:
Post a Comment