In this week’s reading Benjamin argues, “To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the authentic print makes no sense.” Do you agree or disagree? Do you think there is a role for the ‘authentic’ in an age of digital design and manufacture?
I actually agree with Benjamin because the idea of having a more “authentic” original piece of art is an old fashioned idea and doesn't seem to apply much to digital art.
The picture above is The Last Supper, painted by Leonardo da Vinci in the Renascence. This picture is a prime representation of how valuable an original work of art can be. In this case having the original version is much more valuable than a copy as only the original allows you to see unique texture and certain key style points of Leonardo da Vinci’s brushstrokes. There are hundreds of copies and interpretations of this picture but because the copies are using different materials under different conditions they can never match the depth, feel and meaning of the original. Also, people feel that there is a particular aura surrounding a piece of art which is a one of a kind that never seems to fade, even after hundreds of years. Something that can never be re-created with even the most advance of technology.
However as digital technology has been improved, works of art are also altered to be more like digital art works rather than hand craft. This development is one of the key points behind the creation of mass production of art. This means that digital art has lost the idea of art being authentic as people can see and feel exactly the same way from a copy to the original piece of art. People can't really notice any difference from the first or the hundredth photo copy. At this point, today’s digital art copies do not allow to people feel the same unique aura which Leonardo's works has created.
No comments:
Post a Comment