Mr. Benjamin
speaks of art having cult and ritual value, which was the original intent and
subsequent creation of works of art. Could this “value” have an application to
a piece created by, say, Rauschenberg? If so, how? What would the ritual
purpose be? Is the work that is created today in line with what the Greeks were
producing when they were attempting to appease their gods?
(Rauschenberg)
Mr. Benjamin
states “By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a
unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or
listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced.”
Could this aura be the experience that the viewer has when reacting to a work
of art? A film, as a work of art, can have an astonishing affect on the viewer,
if viewed multiple times, could this effect the initial aura of the
reproduction?
Interesting thoughts! Relating to question 2, there have been instances where cinema has captured someone's mind in a personal way whether after a single viewing or repeated viewings. I believe that in a way, reproduction has caused the impersonal to possibly be personal and things we often perceive as kitsch have heartfelt ramification. Your image with question two (which was a nice add, always add images with questions!) reminds me of the cover of Guy Debord's "Society of the Spectacle"... Which in turn told the story of a society washed by spectacle and a working class trained to 'buy' into it. I feel this might be where that astonishment with a mass produced film may enter in.
ReplyDelete