Abby--Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

The discussion of “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” as well as the in class discussions we’ve had regarding “What is Art?” seems not only to point out discrepancies among a physical piece of art and the concept behind a piece (for example the depression-era photograph and the 1980s copy version), but also says something about contemporary American society. In post 1960s America, there seems to be an interesting and important societal debate emerging regarding art for the masses versus art for a select few. “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” describes copying and photographing art so that it becomes an object for the masses. We have discussed the pros and cons at length as to whether this entrance into the mainstream has been beneficial to the art world. I understand that this is not a uniquely American phenomenon (the popularization of art and the debate of whether or not this is a good thing) but I can’t help but to wonder about the ramifications of our societal and political views on this artistic debate (sorry, Poli Sci concentrator). Much of this questioning of what is art and in turn using reproduction as a tool came from Americans such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein. Could the age old question of is the United States run by a single elite (our founding fathers were all rich white guys after all) or a populist nation for the common man be spilling into the minds and artworks/ “artworks” (in quotations for those “pieces” such as the photograph of the photograph) of modern day artists?