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?
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”
I agree with there is a role for the “authentic” in an age of digital design and manufacture. The same reason likes the work of art. The example that I choose is Steven Paul Jobs. He is a famous former CEO & chairman at Apple Inc. He becomes so famous and successfully because he is a unique person, and he did such a great work in this period of time. “Even the most perfect reproduction of artwork of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be” From these sentences we can see the replica does not have the element: time and space. So that is the reason why the aura, the original thing is so wonderful. I think to make this age the work of art can be original, it also depend on the time and space. The digital technology like cameras may be used by the famous photographer to the normal people. Some things that might copy by the original, but you cannot reach the original’s competency. Because it success can't be reproduced.
Reference:
Benjamin, W. (1992) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (pp. 211-244 ) in Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn. London: Fontana.
No comments:
Post a Comment