Louise Lawler - Lauren

After completing these two readings, I thought to myself, what could I possibly say? Not only was I totally lost as to what was said, but nothing really struck me as profound. When I went back through, though, I began to realize that I was getting frustrated with conceptual art and artists.

We have read so many essays that refer back to Walter Benjamin, quoting him in regards to aura and photography’s effect on art and photography’s ability to document anything and the effects of replication…. So many of the authors seem to assume that conceptual art merely fulfilled Benjamin’s prophecies. I’m starting to see it differently. I think that conceptual artists took from Benjamin’s ideas and used them to create this bizarre, replication-based style. In other words, I think that had it not been for Benjamin, the obsession with photographing other artists’ works would have never come about. I find these practices absolutely absurd, and the sole intention of these artists is merely to confuse the viewer. Perhaps it is the realization that we can play with reality and mess with perception that gets these artists rolling on the floor laughing and saying, “Look at those people! They don’t know which was is up or down!”

Put aside the debate of authorship, what really needs to be determined is no long whether or not photography is art, but rather whether or not photographs of other photographs or other art—especially if that piece is by another artist—is itself art.