• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction

doug anderson

New member
Walter Benjamin wrote that because art can be now mechanically reproduced, it loses its "aura." A great thought, certainly, but I don't know if I believe him anymore. I can look at a Cartier-Bresson I've seen a thousand times, and be moved by it, in accordance to the degree of quality concentration I give it. Finally, Benjamin's thinking seems to be Platonic in spite of his Marxism: each copy of a thing is less good or true than the original. Could it be that instead our perceptions have become mechanical, and not the Photo? Could it be that we live so fast, move so fact, and are so bombarded by images that we cannot allow ourselves the contemplative stillness to see a thing "in-depth?"

I saw I book in Border's the other day entitled: "Sex for Busy People." Jeesh.

D
 
If you deny Walter Benjamin's implied premise that art can be mechanically reproduced then his whole argument falls over. How's this for a syllogism:

Art is what artists do.
Only machines can mechanically reproduce things.
No artists are machines.
Therefore art cannot be mechanically reproduced.

Benjamin's musings on originals and copies are not fully thought through either. More syllogisms:

An original is original because it is first.
A copy is made from an original so a copy can't be first.
Therefore a copy can't be an original.

Goodness and truthfullness are not necessarily a property of an original.
A copy does not necessarily assume all properties of the original.
Therefore a copy is not necessarily good or true.

All of these silly syllogisms are trivial but the exercise exposes the folly in a lot of art-speak. Walter Benjamin was one of the most cogent of the Modernist scholars but even he lapses into logically fragile arguments pretty often.

By the way don't try the syllogism game with the Postmodern philosophers. They assertively embrace irony, absurdity, and contradiction so the more you prove them wrong the more right they become!

Logic aside I think the threat mechanical thinking poses in our reaction to art lies less in the appreciation of a work and more in accepting a work as worthy simply because an authority tells us so. If I said H. Cartier-Bresson made no photographs, only exposures, only latent images, during the bulk of his professional career and everything visible ascribed to him was actually made by Pierre Gassmann (1914-2004) would you be less moved by a H.C-B picture? Me neither.
 

doug anderson

New member
If you deny Walter Benjamin's implied premise that art can be mechanically reproduced then his whole argument falls over. How's this for a syllogism:

Art is what artists do.
Only machines can mechanically reproduce things.
No artists are machines.
Therefore art cannot be mechanically reproduced.

Benjamin's musings on originals and copies are not fully thought through either. More syllogisms:

An original is original because it is first.
A copy is made from an original so a copy can't be first.
Therefore a copy can't be an original.

Goodness and truthfullness are not necessarily a property of an original.
A copy does not necessarily assume all properties of the original.
Therefore a copy is not necessarily good or true.

All of these silly syllogisms are trivial but the exercise exposes the folly in a lot of art-speak. Walter Benjamin was one of the most cogent of the Modernist scholars but even he lapses into logically fragile arguments pretty often.

By the way don't try the syllogism game with the Postmodern philosophers. They assertively embrace irony, absurdity, and contradiction so the more you prove them wrong the more right they become!

Logic aside I think the threat mechanical thinking poses in our reaction to art lies less in the appreciation of a work and more in accepting a work as worthy simply because an authority tells us so. If I said H. Cartier-Bresson made no photographs, only exposures, only latent images, during the bulk of his professional career and everything visible ascribed to him was actually made by Pierre Gassmann (1914-2004) would you be less moved by a H.C-B picture? Me neither.

Good points. Benjamin was such a fine writer that he sounds convincing, even when he's wrong.

Re the pomos: if everything is ironic then nothing is ironic and even that's ironic. I wonder if some of them enjoy sex?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The idea of an or the "orginal" applies to the physical entity at the end of the artistic design process when no more work by the artist needs to be performed and the work is generally ready for presentation. Sculptures in bronze may still need to be struck into the final bronze form by the foundry. None, however are copies, they are just numbered instances. The original art then, here in this example is hardly one thing. It's the final product delivered to the foundry as well as the collection of instances which might now be delivered to the public. The same applies to photographic prints.

For photography, unless we are talking about scanning a print, the term "copy" hardly applies. The latent image when completed for that moment is the original and together with the print constitute the work of art with the final instance of the bonze or print being part of a brotherhood of instances made for public participation of that work of art. Let's just consider the photographer's job after making a latent image in some recording medium, film or digital for example.

The artist then decides to delegate printing to him/herself or some outside person. The edition is either open or not. If limited then a certain number of prints are signed and numbered. That's all one can say; "This is print 4/15 and that's that". The image ready to be printed is what is original, unless the photographer changes that at the time of printing. If that happens, then the file with the new instructions becomes the original. With such printing instructions and an artist's proof, the image file or a sheet of film, many skilled printers can deliver within the requirements of the photographer. The resulting print is not a copy, rather, what it is, a print. However, once signed and numbered, and named #4/15, it is unique. That print, 4/15 is not a copy of 1/15 nor of anything! Yes, it happens to be perhaps to our eyes, identical to the first print. However, the word "copy" does not apply. The print 4/15 is merely a new instance in the potentially endless series of prints made from the original negative or image file. All are prints. Even numbering does not imply some "birth rank" as in lithographies where the original might be degraded, as the first print numbered "1/15 might have been print order 17/17, with the first two having been artists proof and BAT copy.

On the other hand, a painting is both the original and the only instance of that. All other such paintings are indeed copies or else individual originals, variations on a theme.

Asher
 

doug anderson

New member
The idea of an or the "orginal" applies to the physical entity at the end of the artistic design process when no more work by the artist needs to be performed and the work is generally ready for presentation. Sculptures in bronze may still need to be struck into the final bronze form by the foundry. None, however are copies, they are just numbered instances. The original art then, here in this example is hardly one thing. It's the final product delivered to the foundry as well as the collection of instances which might now be delivered to the public. The same applies to photographic prints.

For photography, unless we are talking about scanning a print, the term "copy" hardly applies. The latent image when completed for that moment is the original and together with the print constitute the work of art with the final instance of the bonze or print being part of a brotherhood of instances made for public participation of that work of art. Let's just consider the photographer's job after making a latent image in some recording medium, film or digital for example.

The artist then decides to delegate printing to him/herself or some outside person. The edition is either open or not. If limited then a certain number of prints are signed and numbered. That's all one can say; "This is print 4/15 and that's that". The image ready to be printed is what is original, unless the photographer changes that at the time of printing. If that happens, then the file with the new instructions becomes the original. With such printing instructions and an artist's proof, the image file or a sheet of film, many skilled printers can deliver within the requirements of the photographer. The resulting print is not a copy, rather, what it is, a print. However, once signed and numbered, and named #4/15, it is unique. That print, 4/15 is not a copy of 1/15 nor of anything! Yes, it happens to be perhaps to our eyes, identical to the first print. However, the word "copy" does not apply. The print 4/15 is merely a new instance in the potentially endless series of prints made from the original negative or image file. All are prints. Even numbering does not imply some "birth rank" as in lithographies where the original might be degraded, as the first print numbered "1/15 might have been print order 17/17, with the first two having been artists proof and BAT copy.

On the other hand, a painting is both the original and the only instance of that. All other such paintings are indeed copies or else individual originals, variations on a theme.

Asher

Nice distinction, Asher. There is a sub-theme in this question. And that is, whether or not, at intervals, we need to reorient ourselves to what is actually there, in the image, rather than what we have been culturally conditioned to believe is there. An example from literature. People have been conditioned to believe that the plays of Chekov are sad and dreary. They are, in fact, in addition to their pathos, enormously funny when well played. Ditto Beckett.

My question here is, does the sheer ubiquity of images turn us off to the point that we merely identify the images and do not engage with them as they really are. Is this a point of education that needs to be stressed over and over again?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
An example from literature. People have been conditioned to believe that the plays of Chekov are sad and dreary. They are, in fact, in addition to their pathos, enormously funny when well played. Ditto Beckett.
Yes, the people who say the dreary things, haven't had the best performances. Just try one of Esa-Pekka Salonen's brilliant modern dimensional compositions played outside a major orchestra! People would evacuate the city! "Wing On Wing", for example, includes parts for two sopranos and distorted samples of architect Frank O. Gehry's voice as well as a fish. Unless performed well and with inspiration, it will, not come off well! :)

My question here is, does the sheer ubiquity of images turn us off to the point that we merely identify the images and do not engage with them as they really are. Is this a point of education that needs to be stressed over and over again?
Doug,

Here I'd answer a definite no! I believe the ubiquity of art simply educates our brains and we better understand the language artists might use. So a whole new interwoven fabric of common imaging and derived mythology has arisen. I think we are now richer for it but we are aware of the well worn cliché. If you want to impress or be funny, don't just recycle! Without adding one's own originality, people will unmask us in a Hollywood second!

Asher
 

doug anderson

New member
Yes, the people who say the dreary things, haven't had the best performances. Just try one of Esa-Pekka Salonen's brilliant modern dimensional compositions played outside a major orchestra! People would evacuate the city! "Wing On Wing", for example, includes parts for two sopranos and distorted samples of architect Frank O. Gehry's voice as well as a fish. Unless performed well and with inspiration, it will, not come off well! :)


Doug,

Here I'd answer a definite no! I believe the ubiquity of art simply educates our brains and we better understand the language artists might use. So a whole new interwoven fabric of common imaging and derived mythology has arisen. I think we are now richer for it but we are aware of the well worn cliché. If you want to impress or be funny, don't just recycle! Without adding one's own originality, people will unmask us in a Hollywood second!

Asher

Asher: I'm relieved at your optimism.

Cheers,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher: I'm relieved at your optimism.

Cheers,

Doug
Doug,

Yes, I'm optimistic, but pragmatic. We do happen to discard 99% of the imaging garbage shown us. We wait for the uniquely original to turn up! Our brains are efficient at ranking things for us. That conserves our energy and sense of direction. Yes, the common images are there, but unless there's something new, they get little attention. If we were not so very well protected, we'd go mad.

Asher
 
Last edited:

doug anderson

New member
Doug,

Yes, I'm optimistic, but pragmatic. We do happen to discard 99% of the imaging garbage shown us. We wait for the uniquely original to turn up! Our brains are efficient at ranking things for us. That conserves our energy and sense of direction. Yes, the common images are there, but unless there's something new, they get little attention. If we were not so very well protected, we'd go mad.

Asher

It worries me somewhat that subtlety has to compete with blaring obviousness, that the culture tends to flatten things out into surfaces. It is the artist's job, of course, to fight this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Relevance of pictures.

It worries me somewhat that subtlety has to compete with blaring obviousness, that the culture tends to flatten things out into surfaces. It is the artist's job, of course, to fight this.

A good point! There are many dynamic alterations going on. Some aspects of what we see are demoted in significance and suppressed. It's dangerous for us to pay attention to everything. That way we'd miss resources we need and existential threats. Everything is seen but there has to be something more to arouse our attention! It might be a twisted shape, perhaps a snake or a potential mate with some desired characteristic we have deemed important.

France, for example, has blunted objections to pictures of nakedness. So now the released beauty of a nude can be used to attract attention and associate delicate beauty with a new perfume.

In works of art, the artist is working with and against the cultural languages of relevance. We use tricks and strategies to exploit, blunt, challenge and even modify the givens of cultural expectations and dogma. Our visual vocabulary is hardly a set of rules that are fixed in some way. The artist is a sea captain who reads the clouds and waves and knows the seas and secure harbors. We deal essentially two types of evaluations of images: stable and dynamic.

Apparently stable impressions of images are of two overlapping kinds. I'd postulate that some key concepts are fairly hard-wired, like a coastal rock face, but even these can overcome. Some ideas are new structures, culturally evolved and are buttressed by experience, living necessities, tools use, mythologies and politics. These have infected our brains with ideas that are extraordinary by their persistence even against logic and evolving circumstances.

Other measures of significance are much more labile. These are buttressed by day-to-day events, wars, treaties, new tools, fashion, shortages, excesses and so forth. So this set of measures of what we see in pictures and interesting are like bodies of water. Such image elements are waterways. Some ideas are distilled gently like morning dew evaporating each day in the warmth of the sun. Other ideas are still, choked in stagnant pools, or raging storm swept lakes, slow moving streams of new ideas and bubbling brooks of new ideas, gentle falls, swift waters eroding banks and carving new paths, and rapids bringing destruction of everything there before.

It's in this set of fairly stable and dynamic meanings and ranks of ideas that we look at images, the hundreds we see every day. Art is our entertaining tool for guiding this process.

Asher
 
Top