In the beginning of the paper it was stated that in regards to mechanically reproduced works "the quality of its presence is always depreciated." then it goes into the importance of authenticity to a piece of art and how for natural objects such a thing is not brought into question. What I ask is do you notice yourself or other people tending to belittle art that is mechanically produced rather than manually, even when it takes just as much time to produce? If so, do you see this view changing and at some point in the future such work as film and digital media will be automatically lotted into art with mediums like painting or sculpture?
In section V it touches on art works that the public has limited access to or is in a fixed place. Easily reproduced or transported works
can be exhibited in more accessible places and get much more exposure, but
don’t they lose the stronger sense of atmosphere? How important is it for art to have a special setting that it is presented in? On this note, does mechanically produced
art have less of the mentioned “aura” that a manually produced work have
when it does not have a fixed or preffered setting?
Compare maybe a theatre that prepares your for the show or movie prior to the showing
as opposed to a dvd viewed at home or seeing a sculpture in a cathedral as opposed to a reproduction.
Sorry that the questions are long and actually several questions rolled together. The critical ones are "Do people tend to belittle mechanically produced art?" and "How important is it to art for it to have a special setting to be presented in?"
No comments:
Post a Comment