“In principle a work of art has always been reproducible” (Benjamin 217). Walter Benjamin’s first sentence, as elementary as it is, dives into the interdependence of literature and history: literature is impossible without examination of historical trends. Walter’s theory - a criticism on the implications of social media on art in the 20th century - has an importance in explaining how to use social phenomenon to analyze literature (especially in current times with the formation of new and unique media forms); however, this theory follows his primary view of his piece The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction, authentic art forms have a certain aura to them that resonates and enlightens others, even to the point of imitation which …show more content…
On the other hand, anyone who draws a painting of a mountain is then considered to have imitated the first person’s work and therefore must have diminished any value that the first painting brought to the audience’s attention. Although his main argument lies in film and how small changes in effects can’t alter the underlying theme, he will still claim that painting or any visual art form can be reproduced and that this replica will only serve as a tool to undermine the original. In other words, these small distractions that are added to the reproduction will take away from understanding the artist’s point of view and …show more content…
In fact, most people would consider this view to be the most natural viewpoint: an increase in variability lead to more distinguishing factors which ultimately lead to different views from that of the original. This idea is the basis of everything - from multiple versions of a text to the variations among life – and therefore does not need to be proven
The word “original” is often used to describe paintings that have been manufactured by hand, but it is not clear whether hand-made copies of work are still considered so. When an artist copies another’s art, is his own art original now that it has been tainted by the thoughts’ of others? The poem “To A Mouse” by Robert Burns served as inspiration for John Steinbeck when writing the famed tragedy “Of Mice and Men.” Steinbeck, a Nobel prize-winning author, set many of his books during the Great Depression or the California Dustbowl, times when the future seemed bleak. In Of Mice and Men, man-child Lennie and his “father figure” George form an unsuspecting friendship, and set off into the world with their dreams of one day buying land and settling down. The characteristics of these protagonists are directly taken from the Burns’ poem, which describes similar characters. Is such a close emulation detrimental to the value of originality in the work? Steinbeck believed that “only through imitation do we develop toward originality,” a motif seen in Of Mice and Men. Inspiration is necessary for all art, but by exploiting Burns’ poem, Steinbeck bastardizes the innocence of originality.
Artists are masters of manipulation. They create unimaginably realistic works of art by using tools, be it a paintbrush or a chisel as vehicles for their imagination to convey certain emotions or thoughts. Olympia, by Manet and Bierstadt’s Sierra Nevada Mountains both are mid nineteenth century paintings that provide the viewer with different levels of domain over the subject.
It corresponded to the emulation, which emerged among the lower classes of the postindustrial era, to pretend to have a good taste of art like the upper class. After the Industrial Revolution, the underprivileged, who had previously produced things to fulfill their own daily needs, turned into the working class of the urbans, producing things whose value in daily usage they would never see . This shift from crafting to manufacturing, from formulating to fabricating, and from creative to repetitive triggered a new need among these people. Although they did not have the time or education to enjoy and appreciate fine arts when they were in the countryside, the lower classes felt a new inclination towards art in the factory towns where they had the opportunity to observe that taste in art provided social status. Their desire to own works of art was precluded by their incomes which were no match for the high prices of the art market. With the aid of the mass production technologies and the manufacturing-commercial culture that followed, it became possible to produce multiple copies of artistic works and reduce the prices. This situation not only expanded the scope of art market but also provided the lower class with what they desired –or at least what they thought they desired: affordable art
The article Artists Mythologies and Media Genius, Madness and Art History (1980) by Griselda Pollock is a forty page essay where Pollock (1980), argues and explains her views on the crucial question, "how art history works" (Pollock, 1980, p.57). She emphasizes that there should be changes to the practice of art history and uses Van Gogh as a major example in her study. Her thesis is to prove that the meaning behind artworks should not be restricted only to the artist who creates it, but also to realize what kind of economical, financial, social situation the artist may have been in to influence the subject that is used. (Pollock, 1980, pg. 57) She explains her views through this thesis and further develops this idea by engaging in scholarly debates with art historians and researcher, and objecting to how they claim there is a general state of how art is read. She structures her paragraphs in ways that allows her to present different kinds of evidences from a variety sources while using a formal yet persuasive tone of voice to get her point across to the reader.
...on their market value, has become the substitute for what paintings lost when the camera made them reproducible” (146). Confirming Berger’s argument, when I viewed this piece of art, I was amazed by it. It invited me in and I spent a long period of time looking at, and looking into it. Although the environment of the museum added to my experience of viewing the artwork, if the original painting had looked as vibrant and colorful as the reproduction, the painting would have been even more intriguing. If I had seen the reproduction first, I know that I would not have been pulled into this piece of art.
Varnedoe, Kirk. A Fine Disregard: What Makes Modern Art Modern. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1990. 152. Print.
Benjamin stressed the Marxist democratization of art through digital reproduction, a media which allows for de-emphasizing the original work of art. Throughout the history of arts, particularly visual arts, we have revered the individual paintings created by artists, locating them in exclusive galleries and museums which are subject to the tastes and privilege of the upper class philanthropic elite. The value of a work is based in part by which wealthy patrons have owned or commissioned it, and the history of a canvas often becomes more important than the actual formal representation on it.
My goal for this paper is to give a practical critique and defense of what I have learned in my time as a Studio Art Major. During my time here I have learned that Pensacola Christian college’s definition of art “art is the organized visual expression of ideas or feelings” and the four parts of Biblosophy: cannon, communication, client, and creativity. Along with Biblosophy I have studied Dr. Frances Schaeffer 's criteria for art, seeing how the technical, and the major and minor messages in artwork. All of these principles are great but they do need to be refined.
Whether it be writers, painters, sculptors, musicians, or photographers, artists all over the world have striven to show people their views of the world, of people, and even of the universe itself. Throughout history the creative urge of man to present to fellow men a different perspective or representation of life-or even the afterlife-has surfaced time and time again in the form of artwork. Sometimes it comes through genius and complexity, full of meaning and symbolism. Others, it is simple and void of any clear meaning at all other than that it is art. Soon, however, there became a point when the work of art was no longer something one could just look at and understand; the principle of the matter had changed. Art leapt from viewable understanding straight into the Modern movement where theory became art, and to understand it, one must know the theory it is based upon. Never was this more apparent than in the artwork of the abstract expressionist. Essentially, artwork is not art because of theory, and art based on theory cannot be creative or truly said to be art.
“Philosophers, writers, and artists expressed disillusionment with the rational-humanist tradition of the Enlightenment. They no longer shared the Enlightenment's confidence in either reason's capabilities or human goodness.” (Perry, pg. 457) It is interesting to follow art through history and see how the general mood of society changed with various aspects of history, and how events have a strong connection to the art of the corresponding time.
When looking at the tradition of shanshui, it seems to face an endless stream of reproductions of limited number of landscape stereotypes. New masters built their reputation particularly on borrowing and copying freely from those old masters. Still, now when people learn Chinese landscape painting, they start with imitation (臨摹), which means they was confined to copying old masters, thus studying and copying masters’ works are necessary foundations for artists’ creation. From the modern culture condition, creating is what art should do, but not like the way of tradition shanshui used to be. But then, some studies found that what they call “copy” is not really what we understand “copy” to mean. From particularly tracing to liberal reinterpretation to subtle recreation, what begins as a way of learning continues as a way of self-cultivation and of creation. Dong Qichang said that the main point of using brush and ink to imitate the masterpiece is that to connect with and think deeply of the original on...
John Berger presents a multifaceted argument regarding art, its interpretations, and the various ways of seeing. Berger asserts that there is gap between the image that the subject sees and the one that was originally painted by the artist. Many factors influence the meaning of the image to the subject and those factors are unique to the subject themselves. Seeing is not simply a mechanical function but an interactive one. Even the vocabulary is subject to specialized scrutiny by Berger; an image is a reproduction of an original product, while only the product itself may truly be a ‘painting’. Images are seen at an arbitrary location and circumstance – they are different for everyone – while the product, which is in one place, is experienced
Stuart Hall emphasizes that the popular is constantly evolving. And due to this ever-changing society, the ways in which things are perceived is changing as well. This concept, coined articulation theory, is one of the huge reasons behind artistic expression. Throughout all of history, stories, evidence, and art are forgotten, altered, or misperceived. Because so many important parts of the past are overlooked, artists and writers focus on drawing the attention of modern society to these buried antiquities. However, because the global has changed in such monumental ways, these important ideas are expressed differently. These forms of expression are represented in innovative and thought provoking, yet rather uncomfortable ways. However, the
Benjamin argues that reproduction devalues art because it no longer has an aura. The aura of an art piece ties it to a specific location and time. He believes that only the original hold a history that cannot be reproduced: “In even the most perfect reproduction, one thing is lacking: the here and now of the work of art-its unique existence in a particular place. It is this unique existence-and nothing else-that bears the ... ...
Many believed that Modernist works were not “art” because they did not always look like real life. But what is “real life”? A new outlook on reality was taken by Modernists. What is true for one person at one time is not true for another person at a different time. Experimentation with perspective and truth was not confined to the canvas; it influenced literary circles as well.