So this is my very first blog ever so excuse the scatter-brained writing and here it goes. I wanted to write about Benjamins and Durham’s articles because I feel like much of what they argue has great potential to create great debate. Anyways I bet there is so much of the article’s that I didn’t grasp or write about but here it goes.
I think that Benjamin makes an incredibly great point that art cannot be reproduced without deconstructing its intended aura but I can’t say I totally agree. I feel that art is a great mode of communicating what an artist is feeling but I feel that art is great because of the feeling and meaning a person receives. I think the best part about art, as a method of revolution, depends solely on the way it makes the audience feel. Because there is such prominent class divide the reaction will never be the same. Each class creates and practices its own set of ideologies that they carry, as Durham states, unconsciously which directly affect the way people of each class react to things.
Just imagine a great artist who wants to create a revolution because he is unsatisfied with society. So he creates this grand piece of work that is disconnected and/or portrays something he didn’t intend. Or imagine an artist that creates something totally meaningless but inspires a mass group of people to ban together. Because of different life experiences, socio-economic status, geography a reaction to a piece of art, no matter the time, place, or original intention the aura is not destroyed but changed. Changed because the aura was open for interpretation in its original state so in another time, place, context the reaction of the audience is all that originally mattered anyway, so its purpose and aura is unchanged.
The point I’m trying to make is that art is open to interpretation for a reason, it doesn’t matter in what state, context, meaning the art was created in, its how the audience reacts to it. In most cases the authenticity of a piece of art is not degraded by its reproduction but simply allows for a greater audience. And while exploitation is bound to happen in any space, reproducing art can be used as a way of expansion of audience but is easily exploited for any one groups purpose.
I’m going to restrain form diving too deep into the topic I have in my head because it could turn into a long paper but I want to say that after reading Durham’s article it is hard to say whether reproducing a piece of art is just art to get a reaction and to express an artist’s emotion to a greater audience or if it is a way to manipulate the masses. And I’m stuck…
1 comment:
While I understand where you're coming from with this post, I'll have to respectfully disagree with one of your points. I think that a piece of art is created with a specific purpose, even if that purpose is as trivial as allowing someone to enjoy a beach scene while they're in Alaska, and that that message is what really is important. Important may be the wrong word, or at least carry the wrong connotations, but that's what I've got for right now. If a group gets riled up over a piece of art that carried a message to them that was not the artists intended message, than great, but I don't think I can reconcile how a piece that may have been intended to carry the message of "eat no meat," and causes a hysteria where people go out and eat as much meat as they can, could be seen as successful or somehow. While I agree that reproduction is absolutely a way to allow for greater consumption, I do not see how that reproduction carries the same weight as the original in context. Present someone with the Guernica today on the street and see if they come back with any meaning or message. Take that same person to see the Guernica where it hangs and provide context, and you may be able to tease some extra depth from the piece of art.
And that's my point :]
Post a Comment