I thought id share a cool video of wavelengths in action on the topic of sound:
acoustic oscillations
Reply
Monthly Archives: September 2015
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
The article brings attention to the reproduction of art over many years and the impact mechanical reproduction has had on art. For many years the reproduction of art was rooted in pupils practicing a craft, for masters of their craft and the gain of third parties. As the reproduction process was used by pupils who became more skilled in their practice. The Greeks used ways like stamping and then in the Middle Ages woodcut. Lithography came onto the scene and contributed in the change of this process of reproducing art. When the mechanical reproduction of the lithography began being used, it had the means to keep up with printing. This also is how everyday life would be depicted and shared, moving away from such things as stamping, printing and wood cut. Not long after photography becomes apart of this changing process of reproduction of art, film and moving images became apart of this process, and then sound being available on film contributed.
The article also discusses how film being the most powerful agent in this process, and that this form of reproduction contributed to the reactivation of the object that was being reproduced. This process of history developed new ways to produce art also brought with it a new kind of perception. As humans have changed their sense of perception then humanity’s mode of existence becomes altered. The social bases of contemporary decay of aura, which is the unique phenomenon of distance, however close it may be, was the increased significance of the masses in contemporary life. The reality that reproduction was readily accepted and desired, getting as close to the real thing.
The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. Creating value through the uniqueness combined with aura, creates the basis in ritual. The mechanical reproduction cuts ties with the dependence on ritual. Then authenticity ceases to be applicable in such things like photography and film. Requesting a authentic photo makes no sense, since each is a source of mechanical reproduction. This then takes us farther away from ritual and redefines the basis of authenticity. The criterion of authenticity in artistic production, ceases to come from ritual and rather is based on another practice, politics.
The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction
The essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” was written by Walter Benjamin on 1936. And we read the first 4 sections among the 15 section in the whole essay. His main point was aura has disappeared in the modern age because art has become reproducible and technology renders art impure. The loss of the aura through the mechanical reproduction of art, the originality and authenticity of an art work has not been reproduced. A painting has an aura because there is no way to replicate as the original piece.
I learned from my art history classes that the technology of ink printing makes it possible to print multiple copies of an art work which can bring extra money to artists. Around 1830s, there were a group of artists created a new style called impressionism because of the strong impact from photography on paintings. Impressionists wanted to prove the idea by painting series of the same thing. I think technology did changed art, in a good way.
The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction
The work of Art in the age of mechanical reproduction by Walter Benjamin was a tough read for me. The first section was about the history of art and technology. This part was compoundable. I could follow along with it. Woodcut graphic art was surpassed by lithography and a couple of decades later photography took over. With the advancement of technology art was able to keep up with the world on daily base.
The rest of the article was hard for me to understand. What I understood from the second section was that reproduction of art had its downside and upside. The downside of reproduction of art was it took away from the original piece. But the upside was that reproduced art could be reached to a larger audience. I believe that the rest of the article explained the history of art form the Romans to today. It also stated that the progression of art depends on society. Art was first made for rituals and then progressed to religion. Now it has changed and now is based on politics.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
After reading ” The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, written by Walter Benjamin, I can now say that I have a better understanding of the purpose of reproducing art and how this process has affected art culture in the past, and how it is currently affecting many modern art forms such as film, photography, and new media art. Benjamin points out that reproducing works of art takes the authenticity and “aura” away from the original piece, which is why artists refrain from letting their works of art be copied. Even though Walter has a point, I do believe that in today’s modern society and how fast technology is evolving, the reproduction of art and the interpretations made created by them allows for the exposure of certain art forms and how much of a cultural impact they can make on a society , regardless if it is the original or not. Walter’s final statements regarding mechanical reproduction within the art culture really summarize the shirt in motives in the art community from being based on tradition and ritual to a political and contextual point of view.
Mechanical Reproduction notes
After read Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction “, I have a better understanding of how Mechanical Reproduction has changed our life and production, and the Benjamin has described a theory of art that would be “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art.”
The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.
Echtheit
aura
机械复制时代的艺术作品
Reproduction
The author of this paper argues that art is better thanks to the technique of reproduction. In some ways I agree, such as reaching viewers in areas of the world it may not otherwise be seen. I also agree that with some reproduction, the reproducer can find something new to discover within the piece that had not been seen before.The only problem with reproduction of art is that credit has to be given to the original artist whose piece is being reproduced. Without knowing who the original artist was,a reproduction can be mistaken for an original, and the genius of the original maker is lost. Context is also lost in this manner, and it harms the original art in this way more than it helps it, because it closes the door to discovery in which giving credit opens. I do believe that some reproductions are necessary however because of the fresh ideas and new spin they being to the table, as the author says I his own way.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
This article by Benjamin was an interesting read because of its close connection to our current topic of “Remix/Mash-up” and copyright issues. Though it is hard to agree with him on his standpoint of mechanical reproduction, I can definitely understand where Benjamin is coming from. This article clearly wasn’t written in recent years where our current society, with the internet and technology surrounding us, have headed into the digital era. Back then, when mechanical reproduction such as photographs and film was their version of “new media,” I can see the horrors for some artists to see that artworks that they painted by hand for hours can suddenly be mass produced cheaply by photographers. It’s like the feeling of saving up all your money in order to fly to Paris to see the Mona Lisa Portrait in an art gallery, being thrilled by the experience because not everyone gets to see it back then, and then a month later finding it being printed on postcards everywhere you go (I wonder what Benjamin thought of L.H.O.O.Q, haha). However, these kinds of changes are inevitable as our technology evolves. It is happening everywhere, record companies and blockbusters are being shut down and replaced with p2p sharing software such as Limewire, and then replaced again with Pandora and Spotify. Cable TV can suddenly feel Benjamin’s fear after people ditch their service and subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, and Youtube channels instead. One thing that I do agree with Benjamin is that there is something magical about artworks that are produced with traditional mediums, like classic literature of Shakespeare and religious art that have been preserved. However, who can really determine their originality and authenticity? Even Benjamin himself agrees that work of art has always been reproducible.
Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Copying an artwork by and hand and copying it mechanically with the aid of a machine are very different processes. A machine can duplicate an image in perfect detail, each line starkly reproduced without any variation from the original. When we copy by hand, however, it is not humanly possible for our derivative work to be exactly the same, no matter how skilled or painstaking our efforts may be. We always wind up putting a little bit of ourselves into the new piece, making it similar to its predecessor but somehow not the same.
We associate originality and uniqueness with value. Some artists do not want their work to be copied because they feel it will take away from the ingenuity and significance of the original. On the other hand, allowing work to be copied means that cheaper copies can be afforded and owned by more people, and thus the art piece will have a broader reach and cultural impact. The so-called “aura” of a truly powerful art piece lives on through all the copies, which in effect become a series of windows through which we gaze back to the first. For example, most people have never seen the Mona Lisa in person, but we have all experienced her mysterious smile because we live in the age of mechanical reproduction.
Age of Mechanic Reproduction
First off I would like to state that Walter Benjamin has a negative view of mechanic reproduction because he believes that it is “parasitic” to the arts because the copies will take away from the original. Personally for me, it is fine to replicate art and manipulate it because its a great way for our culture to learn and grow. My idea of reproduction is similar to how they must replace ships parts to keep it intact to the original. An example of this is that in order for historians to keep their places “original” they must replace decaying parts. With that said the whole piece would be considered original, however if this is done over and over again to all of the ships part, is it still the same ship? Yes, because it’s ever changing but named the same.
Going back to reproduction of art, I believe is fine to do reproduce art regardless of how it takes away from the original. We live in a social society and it is beneficial for everyone if we learn from replicated piece rather than just one example or one piece. Replication is fine to some extent however. I believe that another artist shouldn’t replicate art from another artist then receive all the credit from that work. In that situation both parties should be compensated.
Lastly the question is replicated work still art? It is from my stand point because regardless of replicated or not, it still has its own form or it’s own shared identity and ideals of the original. The mechanism of reproduction has developed a lot throughout the years and it is one of those ideal of replication that we must accept in order to achieve that next step of ideal in the future.
Introduction to Digital Video Art 