Innovations are able to transform the technique of the arts, therefore changing the notion of art. In this reading, the author discusses the ideas of reproducing forms of artwork to keep up with each other, the process of reproduction, as well as what makes an object unique. Some questions that we gathered from these ideas were: does reproduction destroy uniqueness and the authority of the artwork? What was the importance of aura in art? How exactly does this reading persist today? In the reading, we felt that some of these concepts as well as these questions were not fully explained or answered, such as the aura and reproduction in keeping up with different art media. We understood that perhaps what the audience truly looked for in an artwork was for the aura of the artwork to be linked to the artist.
However, with technical reproduction such as photography, this idea that the original has a certain aura fades away. With various processes, photographic reproduction is able to perceive with the lense certain details that are unattainable to the naked eye. So in this sense, would there still be an aura and what exactly is the original versus reproduction? The author’s whole argument is based on this principle of aura, which is itself not explained: it is thus hard to point out the aura in an artwork. In conclusion, even though these were a bit jumbled and confusing to understand, the author did present some references to how people understand and value artwork, and how that has changed through emerging and past technologies.
Key Question: What is an aura exactly?
No comments:
Post a Comment