“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 disagree with this point of view; the role of authenticity in today’s world is a very important one. Authenticity is what drives the consumer of today. From buying original works of art, to collecting memorabilia, to buying the best brand of cell phone. While we have the technology to digitally reproduce works of art multiple times, we find that the first print is the most expensive, or the artist will only print a certain number, therefore we have authenticity through limitation.
Benjamin Walter also talks about the aura of a piece of art, saying “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens..” (Walter.B 1936) And while I agree that yes, seeing a copy of a work of art doesn’t hold the same effect as seeing the original, I also believe that something digitally produced, like a photograph, still holds an aura. For example the photos taken by Herbert George Ponting and Frank Hurley, on Captain Scott’s last journey to the South Pole hold an incredible aura when seen in real life. They show a moment in time of incredible hardship and beauty, and today almost one hundred years on, these photos are not lacking in the elements of presence in time and space and its unique existence at the place where it happened.
There has always been copies of art throughout time. It’s just that today it is a lot easier to reproduce work so there is more of an inclination to do so.
Walter.B (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.
No comments:
Post a Comment