In the beginning of the interviewLouise Lawler says something that immediately clicked with something Walter Benjamin said in his piece, "The work works in the process of its reception. I don't want the work to be accompanied by anything that doesn't accompany it in the real world" (192). Here, Lawler is referring to reservations about doing an interview. She doesn't want to reveal too much about the work, or interpret the work, because it has a certain context where it is displayed. This context helps interpret the work, along with the sentiment of the viewer. Benjamin would relate this to his "aura" he frequently references. A work of art in its environment has a certain aura, an authenticity, and it seems that Lawlers works have that aura in the museum, or the gallery, or wherever. In their place, they are most effective and affective to the viewer.

This point is extremely interesting because Lawler is still a photographer, but her pictures seem to work differently than most other photos. Like Benjamin points out, photography is mechanically reproduced and makes its way to the viewer in many different ways. In any case, it lacks authenticity and an aura because it doesn't have that "home" that a painting or sculpture or whatever does. There isn't an original or even only one copy that was created for one space. From this quote of Lawlers, though, we can infer that she is saying her pieces work best in that space, and the viewer needs to come there to interpret it.

Lawler's work confuses me. Most of her parts of the interview confuse me. However I enjoy looking at some of her pieces because they truly are fascinating. We looked at the piece with the tourine and Pollack in the beginning and after reading this interview and seeing how different her artwork is, I have a better appreciation for that piece. Showing us the Pollack in that new environment is puzzling at first, and we do need to contemplate it for a while before we can feel satisfied. At least that is how it was for me. Trying to look at the Pollack piece within her piece is impossible, so we must then step back and veiw the entire photograph for what it is. I am still not sure what that is, but I know that her photos weren't necessarily supposed to be straight forward. I imagine that the concepts behind it were more important than the composition or color in the actual photograph itself. On page 194 she says "A gallery generates meaning through the type of work it chooses to show." To me, this reiterates the fact that the actual subject matter isn't as important as the meaning behind it (plus others) when looking at a piece by Lawler.