I actually read Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction in relation to film theory some time ago. He brings up points that do still have
meaning during our era, mostly the form of plagiarism and even re-appropriation. Benjamin’s example of the statue of Venus
illustrates the idea of appropriation perfectly, “Venus…stood in a different
traditional context with the Greeks, who made it an object of veneration, than with
the clerics of the Middle Ages, who viewed it as an ominous idol. Both of them,
however were equally confronted with its uniqueness, that is, its aura”
(Benjamin 5). Benjamin argues that aura
is the unique characteristic that never leaves a piece of work, however, I
would argue that now in the digital age this no longer applies. A piece can be altered and reproduced in
infinite ways now and through such alterations can lose its aura, its defining
characteristics or underlying feeling
that the piece gives off. Even just looking at a work in the digital space
seems to alter the aura or render it hidden. For example, look at the Mona Lisa
in a museum, its aura is there and intact. Now pull up google image search and look
up Mona Lisa. There is rows and rows of it, reproduced into infinity and each
one lacks the aura, the feeling, of the original work.
Another
line from Benjamin I find interesting is, “Works of art are received and valued
on different planes. Two polar types stand out; with one, the accent is on the
cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work” (Benjamin
5). What this means is one piece of art
could be like a church relic and another a piece in a museum. In the modern age, this can be seen as more
of underground art vs. traditional art.
People still strive to put their work into museums but then there are
the “cult” artists that either publish solely online or in un-traditional
mediums like street art. Although now
the two merge somewhat, street art is cult like but at the same time is
exhibitionist at its core, it is put straight into the public space for
everyone to see. So with the advent of
the digital world and evolving art forms, cult vs. exhibition begins to merge.
Bush’s
article I found to be enlightening on the ideas that he presented of future
technology. The part on the camera “certainly progress in photography is not
going to stop” (Bush 4). Rather than use
a long quote or paraphrasing I would just like to look at the paragraph
starting with the line quoted. It is
interesting to see that back then although he had some notion of what would be
in the future, what we actually have is way past what he though. He still mentions film and square
frames. Instead we have digital and wide
frames and anything in between. Photography
has progressed incredibly far, now there is gopros and google glass similar to
what he described but far surpassing his predictions. The web allows for sharing of millions of
photos and no need for film. It is interesting to think that technology progressed
so much faster than even a scientist of that time could comprehend or predict.
In a
similar vein, “Ideas are beginning to appear for equation transformers, which
will rearrange the relationship expressed by an equation in accordance with
strict and rather advanced logic” (Bush 11). Bush speaks of computers here but only in the
sense of them being mathematical. Now,
we can use computers for far more things and in the scope of this class, art. Big data and data visualization is one
example I can think of. The digital art
world has surpassed data as being only figures that can be used for equations
or intel. Now, it is used to create
beautiful works of art and even art that is more informative than the data itself. Not only that but there are endless ways to create
and present the data. Something that
Bush probably did not foresee, the use of data and science to create art.
