Welcome to the History of Art 1B - Photography & After BlogThis is where we will post our responses to the course readings. In the beginning of the semester students in this course will receive an invitation to join the blog. Students must post their responses to the readings by 10pm the night before class meets.
I have marked each reading that requires a response on the syllabus. Please check the course website for the schedule.
The first post is due January 30 (Walter Benjamin, we are discussing it in class on the 31st)
http://www.kpaulsen.com/photoandafter.html
Kris
14 comments:
I just finished reading the Walter Benjamin Essay, and I found it pretty tough, not only because of the introduction (because my mind wanders off when I spot the words "Marx", and "capitalistic productions". However, a few sentences did get my attention. Benjamin claims that photography freed the hand of the most important artistic function, to only a click of a button after looking through a lens. Like suddenly the art part of it has disappeared, and anyone can take a great photograph. I think differently, however. Look at all our photographers today. They capture something or see something we don't, then they blow it up to 5 times it size and shove it in front of our faces so we can see it. Benjamin continues with his rant about its "loss of artistic value" ,if you may, by explaining how art was seen as magic in prehistoric times, and it took a while until it was actually viewed as art, and I think that cycle repeats itself over and over again in history. Photography keeps getting doubted. What is it? Science or art? IS it telling the truth? Or is it fake? Its such a bizarre creation that people are still confused by it today. Does it even carry any value? Benjamin goes on to say "By making many reproductions, it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence." It no longer is unique. The magic of the first snapshot is lost among the thousands of prints made. Where is the original? Where does the value lay? I find myself agreeing with that. Just like in today's world of digital photos. My computer got stolen and I was furious about losing all my files. I was upset about my documents, my papers, my autocad files. But I definitely didn't care about my pictures. With the world of facebook, they are only a few clicks or right clicks away! They don't hold as much importance. Their magic is lost. "I can no longer think what I want to think, my thoughts have been replaced with moving images." You can not absorb the picture. People take photographs to you down and look at something you missed. Film hurls you even faster to the future. It pushes you forward and doesn't let you look back. Overall, I really liked this piece, but again, it was a pretty tough read.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”
Much of the Benjamin article “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” reminded me of what we talked about Tuesday in class; that the reason Walter Benjamin looked down on photography as an art form itself was because it was an art that could easily be utilized by the masses, rather than previous art forms, which were meant only for the upper-class. “The change that has come about is an expression of the particular conflict in which painting was implicated by the mechanical reproducibility of paintings. Although paintings began to be publicly exhibited in galleries and salons, there was no way for the masses to organize and control themselves in their reception.”
Benjamin states that “One of the foremost tasks of art has always been the creation of a demand which could be fully satisfied only later (with the invention of photography.) Art previously has a lot of exclusivity tied to it because it was difficult to produce, and there for there was very limited quantities of it. However, now with the photograph, art could be mass-produced, quickly and easily, making it much less exclusive.
Benjamin says “The mass is a matrix form which all traditional behavior towards works of art issues today in a new form…Quantity has been transmuted into quality.” The photograph, according to Benjamin, leads to confusion of quality and quantity. He seems to think that because the photograph leads to quantity, people mistake this trait for quality. This is common with technology: as things become easier, society confuses it with becoming better. However, easier is not necessarily a good thing. Benjamin points to war as an example of the negativities of advances in technology. “The destructiveness of war furnishes proof that society has not been mature enough to incorporate technology as its organ, that technology has not been sufficiently developed to cope with the elemental forces of society.” Although technology can be a good thing, like the photograph, society does not no how to correctly utilize these advances, and therefore confuse them.
To Benjamin, the advent of reproducibility in photography and film signaled a transformation in the value of art from that of cult to exhibition. He argues that
By making many reproductions, it substitutes the plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproductions to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the objects reproduced. (3)
However, his overly simplistic analysis does not account for the fact that each individual is interacting with the reproductions through the lens of his own unique background and knowledge. And as a result, the individual perception and interpretation of the reproduction can be very different from the next. Though the “aura” (3) of a work of art can be lost as reproductions are no longer unique, many distinct personal interpretations can be made with the reproduction to reestablish the cult value of these forms of art.
For example, a popular photograph of a family playing on the beach can elicit a multitude of emotions from an individual depending on the context of his interaction. He may experience joy in anticipation of his own visit to a beach, sadness upon learning the passing of his spouse, or even guilt for skipping a day with his family to play golf. Moreover, if this photograph is ubiquitous enough to be subject of multiple viewings, the cumulative effect from each different viewing can create an even deeper cult value of the photograph for the individual.
The same can be said about Benjamin’s interpretation of films. He argues that unlike the stage actor who can interact directly with his audience, the film actor is unable to interact with his audience because “his performance is presented by means of a camera.” (7) However, despite the lack of any direct contact, the interaction between each audience member and the actor can be anything but personal. An individual does not completely forget his past and become an “absent-minded” (14) critic as soon as he steps into the cinema. The film actor’s performance would still be seen and interpreted differently through the lens of each audience member’s experiences and prejudices.
Thus, even in the age of mechanical and digital reproduction and mass media consumption, the cult value of photography and film is not necessarily diminished. Although their ease of reproduction allows them to be more widely exhibited than ever before, the personal connections and cult values of these pieces art are not so much reduced as they are transformed.
In his article "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Walter Benjamin does not directly answer "the question of whether photography is an art" (6). He does, however, argue that the essence of art has been evolved by mechanical means, whether that be photography of film, which he poses as "the primary question -- whether the very invention of photography has not transformed the entire nature of art" (6).
Benjamin commences his article by discussing the reproduction of works of art and "the concept of authenticity" (3). According to Benjamin, through technical reproduction (i.e. photographic reproduction), the original work of art did not preserve its authority as with manual reproduction. "Process reproduction can bring out those aspects of the original that are unattainable to the naked eye yet accessible to the lens" (3). In other words, it takes a mechanical device to bring out all a work of art has to offer -- it could not do so by itself.
Benjamin's discussion of "the aura of the work of art" (3) and how that aura is affected by mechanical reproduction forces his readers to interpret his opinion in a negative fashion. Essentially, Benjamin blames mechanical reproduction for a work of art's loss of significance primarily due to its ability to put art in the hands of the every man.
Then again, Benjamin accredits mechanical reproduction with the emancipation of "art form its parasitical dependence on ritual" (5). Benjamin's harsh tone regarding art's original intention sheds light on his interpretation of art's most significant value in the worldly culture of his time: exhibition value. This emancipation due to photographic reproduction launched the evolution of art that Benjamin considers most significant: "To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility" (5).
It is through film that Benjamin begins to point out how not only can mechanical processes bring art to anyone, but how it can bring anyone to art: "In this way any man might even find himself part of a work of art" (9). But he also discredits what film presents in regards to reality, which is tremendously important considering how photography at the time had been associated with presenting the whole truth. It is difficult, then, to pinpoint Benjamin's feelings towards the mechanical processes of photography and film in relation to art. Does he consider them forms of art? Does he think they have given new light to old art? Or does Walter Benjamin consider mechanical reproduction as detrimental to art and the art world?
My first thought of this essay was, wow this is going to take a while to get into, but as I read on it seemed more and more interesting. During the first couple pages I really enjoyed this quote “photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions”(pg 2) which I interpret as a photography is simpler and easier substitute for art. It made me feel like anyone could take a picture which I personally do not believe. Anyone can take a picture, there’s no doubt about that, but can someone take a picture as powerful as any of Dorthea Lange’s photos. Photography has definitely does not require the natural artistic ability of the hand but it requires a lot of perspective and an eye for capturing a moment in an instant. Artists such as painters and sculptures can capture the moment and possibly the emotion of a situation however they cannot replicate it. I found it very interesting how Benjamin brought this idea up in his essay. He explained how photographs can replicate a an artwork that can be brought to situations that the original could never make it. It reminds me exactly of reading a newspaper and looking at the front cover of the sports section and seeing the Warriors win a game that I wasn’t at but somehow can imagine what it must felt like. This concept of replicating, as Benjamin would say brings objects “closer” and that is exactly what the general population was interested in. Another aspect of Benjamin’s essay that I liked a lot was that he brought up so many different examples of historic accomplishments and discoveries that related to the rise of photography. One example that I recall was how the discovery of hieroglyphs in ancient Egypt effected the population and how this situation was very much like the new idea of photography. Overall, I feel that Benjamin had his strong arguments and I can definitely see how photography is an substitute art for the less talented. However I do not feel that photography is not as diminished as he makes it seem. I believe it is still an art form that requires an eye for the overlooked.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction I thought was much more confusing than it needed to be. It was difficult and dragged out. If the reader was not well educated enough to follow it, then they would not get what he was saying. This is exactly what Benjamin wants because he is speaking only to the more educated part of the population. He talks about how the invention of photography brings down the quality of art because it is so much easier to produce than a great painting. Many more people, specifically the lower and middle class, can create aesthetic images that were previously only available to people that had the ability to paint or draw them. Benjamin argues that the overall quality of art (photography included) is being depreciated due to the vast new library of pictures. The ability to copy a piece of work many times over takes away from its greatness. It is not longer genuine or exclusive. However, he does also blames the 'appeal of art works to the masses'. This is an argument that he probably does not want to directly state to those he holds responsible, but rather share with those he is siding with. This may explain the difficulty of his essay. If this was his intention, I think it was a good move. There is nothing he can do to stop the production and copying of photos or film or even slow it down for that matter. He is simply sharing his observations with a group of readers that will probably agree with him, and he is doing so without getting everyone else to hate him.
There were a few specific things that I found interesting, mainly because it was hard for me to understand a lot of what he said. Or what he meant by certain things. His use of the word "aura" was interesting to me because I've only ever heard it in reference to people. Now it is being used about works of art and its authenticity which is also something intriguing. The reason we go to museum, or Italy, to see works of art is because seeing the original, or the authenticity of a work of art is so much more breath-taking--it gives more a feel for that work of art. Although it seemed he was also saying that the context of that art has been changed, diminishing its aura once again. Photography, is unique because, like Benjamin says, negatives can be reprinted, and there is no one "original" work of art. Although historical times change and our perception of that piece may change, there is no original of the photo. I had never considered that before.
I also found the article interesting when he was talking about stage actors in comparison to film actors. Actors that work for film lose authenticity because they work in bits and pieces and don't have such a direct contact with their audience. He also talks about how the illusion of the film is always there whereas in a play there is a point where the audience could perhaps see the backstage, and realize, then and there, it is not real.
After reading Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction I received a well-informed feeling of how Benjamin viewed photography and film production as a spectacular modern life improvement. When he described how exactly the camera was used and its technical aspect, I felt as if he wrote this as if it were meant to instruct individuals who did not know the first thing about the newly utilized camera device (7).
I think Benjamin did an excellent job of bringing a positive aspect to the idea of camera and film. He makes an effort multiple times to stress that fact that art has really been taken to the next level with these mechanical advances and that people should take heed and recognize that this is merely the beginning of the advancement of art. It was thought that there was only one area in which art could thrive, but now Benjamin makes it clear that with these advancements, art has reached a whole other realm. The camera opened up a whole new world, which provided a different perspective, and Benjamin stressed how important it was for people to take advantage of this opportunity of that time (12).
For most of the reading, I felt Benjamin recapped and focused on the same points multiple times. He constantly stressed the recently learned facts of photography, especially that of the art which is the camera. Clearly, he was impressed with photography and film and I got the feeling that Benjamin thought of film/photography as an excellent work of art having unforeseeable advantages to offer to an individual. He wanted people to know that with film not only is the mechanical aspect of the camera expressed, but also the environment had an integral role in the production of film; a new characteristic of this form of art (11).
Benjamin's essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction was long and difficult, but it held many unique views on the advancement of art from cave drawings to the modern film. One of the unique views which I found to be most interesting was that of the uniqueness of a work of art. The issue of uniqueness became controversial when the age of machines came, and reproducibility became cheap and easy. A work of art holds a place in the universe, unique to itself, just like each person is unique because of their physical features and their personality. A replica of a work of art before the age of machines still held some of the "aura" of the original due to the hours of work and personal touch of the art. The replica was still a work of art itself. However, once machines came along, the replicas were no longer works of art in themselves, making them not as "authentic" or worth as much to the viewer. The aura of the work is generated by the emotion put in by the artist, just like an actor's actual presence on a stage, rather than behind a camera. A good analogy in my eyes is the difference between a homemade chocolate chip cookie and a storebought one. The homemade cookie was most likely made for a specific group of people and it was "made with love." The store bought cookie on the other hand, was made generically and without any emotion. The store bought cookie probably still tasted delicious, and was a good replica, but the aura was not there, making it not as satisfying.
A work of art finds its own niche in the world through its owner and its location. With reproduction, the work of art no longer held a unique place. With mass technological reproduciton the work of art could reach all areas of the globe, touching hands and sitting in places where the original would not dare to go. The paintings of Picasso would probably not be found hanging in the slums of Richmond, yet a postcard of a copy of one of his paintings could very easily be magneted to the refrigerator. Yet again, the refrigerator replica would be lacking the aura of the real thing. For some reason, a picture of the Statue of Liberty downloaded off of Google is not as moving as standing at the base of the real thing. This is what Benjamin describes as aura. There is only one Statue of Liberty located off the Manhattan Island in New York, and that makes it unique. So the question arises, is photography art even though it is literally copying all of its subjects? But then again, hasn't the main focus of art up until this point been to make the painting look as real as possible? Didn't Massacio's Holy Trinity make ladies cry because the perspective made it look so real? Yet when realism reached perfection, people claim that it is not art, simply because it was achieved through the means of something so new and so foreign that people are skeptical to call it art.
I think that Benjamin made an intersting point about how mechanical reproduction steals the aura from a once unique work of art. I actually kind of agree with this point of view; however, that is not that say that I believe that photography is not art. I think the arguement of photography being art was inevitable because everything that is new and innovative is controversial.
Walter Benjamin argues authenticity to be “the most sensitive nucleus” of an art object. There is something to be said for experiencing an original piece of art. I connected to the “ritual” experience that Benjamin describes after going to Spain and France this summer and having the opportunity to partake in the “aura” of the works of Picasso, Gaudi, Van Gogh, Monet, and many other inspired artists. I am by no means an art aficionado, but I can attest to the mind, body, and even spiritual experience that original art inspires. The ritual of experiencing art is uniquely human. It takes a human to appreciate the artistic capabilities of another human, and perhaps this is why it conjures such an emotional response. As I turned the corner of the Reina Sofia Museum and beheld the enormous black, white, gray, and red mural, I found myself questioning This is Guernica? This is Picasso’s painting that I skimmed over in my history book? This is what everyone talks about? My hesitance was not due to disappointment, but rather to the feeling that it was so different than what I intended it to be. For one, the size was overwhelming. And the colors were shocking. People loitered around the painting, trying to partake of the aura of the painting, very much like a ritualistic ceremony. And the same experience held true when my friend and I went to the Muse Dorse in Paris and after hours of lines, stood in front of the Van Gogh paintings. Those famous course brush strokes adverted my thoughts to the artist and I imagined him sitting on a stool, painting on the very same canvas that I was looking at. And not to grossly romanticize my experience, but it was very powerful to think that Van Gogh himself had touched the canvas and mixed the paints that formed the piece of art that hung on the wall in front of me. A reproduction of Van Gogh’s art does not inspire those same feelings. Benjamin says, “for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual” (5). The world “parasitical” is interesting--it certainly does not have the most pleasant connotation, yet the article seems to suggest that the parasite is necessary and good. Benjamin is ambivalent about photography because it is a form of art “designed for reproducibility” (5), thereby removing the ritual. By this he means that the first photograph, the negative, is not the object of desire. Imagine if the poster was more desirable than the original painting of the artist. One does not make a ritual out of going to a museum and viewing the bonafide version of the photograph. Film has gone the same direction, to the point that it as enticing to the masses to watch a camera’s reproduction of a scene than the stage performance. Art is increasingly becoming more about entertainment than expression. I would agree with Benjamin that some degree of ritual and tradition is necessary if we, as a society and even a species, are going to continue making art.
"To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura." After reading the article "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin it seems that he wrote two conflicting ideas. He seems to praise photography as a way to “establish evidence” and represent life images. He writes of the importance of making copies of a picture and how reproducing images was a “tremendous shattering of tradition” and a change in the art world. I thought his statements were really interesting because even though he talked about the objects losing their aura he writes about the ability of the photo to bring the images closer to the person. He talks about how people find this appealing now; that “each day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness, its reproduction”. Throughout the article he writes of the evolution of photography and the way that it is changing the world around him. I thought that it was interesting that he wrote of the mechanical reproduction and how different it is from the old ways when people would try to emulate their professor or their favorite artist. This article wasn’t an easy read, however, because he would write of the positive aspects of photography and the ways that it has affected people but then when speaking of film he seemed to take a very different view. It was interesting reading of his comparison of the artist and the actor and the difference between the stage actor and the film actor. Benjamin seemed to take on the idea that the photograph and the film are positive steps in technology and they can be considered as a new form of art; but that they are both making life more personal and less personal for the public. The public cannot connect to the filmmaker as many believe that they can connect to the artist. I thought that the article was long and many parts were repetitive and seemed to conflict but overall I thought that it was a good connection to the other readings that we have been discussing and looking at the opinions of those around in the beginning of the photography era.
Walter Benjamin's essay conveyed a critique concerned with works of art that were accessible versus pieces that were rare. The dichotomy between the cult and the popular seemed to determine whether a form of expression was considered art or not. He goes on to explain how images were reprintable earlier than words. This made me unsure if Benjamin was for pieces that were poplar or if he considered only rare pieces were considered art.
An interesting example that Benjamin gave was that of the statue of Venus. He stated that at some point, this statue was viewed as sacred. But during the Middle Ages, this became viewed as an idol. Perception, time, and locality seems to play a big role when analyzing a piece's authenticity. The war between ritual and political seem to shape the artisitic world view.
Above all, I found this piece to be very interesting. I would like to discuss the beginning paragraph concerning marxist theory. I really did not understand it, but it seemed interesting and vital to the understanding of the piece.
Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the age of Mechanical Reproduction was, to me, a blatant attack on technology and the recent technological developments of the time. He demonstrates his belief by greatly favoring painting over photography and film (although he does acknowledge that photographs can “bring out those aspects that are unattainable to the naked eye yet accessible to the lens” (3)). Also, his creative surgeon and magician analogy reiterates his belief that technology is starting to have a negative effect in the “art” world.
I tend to agree with Benjamin in some aspects of his arguments. He states, “the reproduction as offered by picture magazines and newsreels differs from the image seen by the unarmed eye” (4). There truly is something magical about gazing upon an original painting and actually experiencing it. However, I feel that the feeling one gets when viewing an original painting can also be had with a photograph or through a film. Also, my view differs from that of Benjamin’s in that he believes reproductions are not a good idea, whereas I believe they are an adequate substitute. Original works of art are not accessible to many so by using photography and, in some cases, film, opportunities arise in which the “masses” can access art.
Overall, the essay, although difficult to get through, created a strong argument that degraded technological developments in the art world. I do agree that the introduction of film and photography altered the art world, but whether it had a negative effect is one’s own opinion. I believe that Benjamin, in a sense, felt threatened and a bit scared by the technological development that quickly changed how and when the world saw art.
Overall, I feel as if Walter Benjamin’s essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, as a whole was not as interesting or easy to read as I was hoping, considering the length of the essay. However, I do feel as if Walter Benjamin had very interesting ideas to share about the relationship of art (film, paintings, photography, printing), with the new technologies and other means of reproducing and transmitting the image of that art. The general tone of his essay is very critical, and Benjamin overall seems to not support the idea of replicating artwork. I feel he makes it a point to express this idea when he states, “ They brush aside a number of outmoded concepts, such as creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery…” He saw the originality and value of art depreciate as the work of art became mechanically reproduced. . According to him, it lost its traditional value. He also explains this as the art loosing its “aura”, which to me reflected the authenticity and own cultural value of the original art. A quote that I found interesting was the following: “For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura, which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.” I interpreted this as a powerful statement Benjamin was trying to say about photography, stating that a photo is never authentic because many replicas can be made from the same image. Again, he is depreciating the value of replicating art.
Post a Comment