The notion of something being real or authentic is, in my opinion, a very complex thing. In some cases it can be very subjective, where as other times it's not up for debate. For example, humans or emotions are real; they are authentic and true. However, when it comes to things like art or film, what is real? We have ways to imitate or copy original pieces of art, or to reenact events and occurrences to appear as if they are real.
Benjamin states that "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 to be" (38). When we start to reproduce original pieces of art, we are losing important factors that made it the art that it is known for. In other words, we lose the history, the value, and the worth. At that point, once a piece of artwork has been replicated or reproduced, it's not the same piece of art, it is a completely different thing. "The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated" (39). The art may physically look the exact same, however, the value has decreased to the point where it's almost not the same piece of artwork.
Benjamin also brings up the significance of the 'aura'. "We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be" (40). I found this rather interesting because initially when I was reading, I wasn't understanding the purpose of it. However, after thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense. I took it as a way to relate to underlying messages or meanings to the things around us. In art, there is always an underlying message that is trying to be conveyed. For example, there is a self portrait by Frida Kahlo where she is topless with white loose bandages wrapped around her torso, and in the middle of her body you see an actual column from a building that is cracked in many places. Although, when at first glance, we would take the painting at face value, there is in fact an underlying aura. The aura would be that it represents the pain she endured throughout her life, living with a severe spinal cord injury that crippled her. Since she is topless, the exposure suggests that she is vulnerable to the pain and the accident that she was in.
With that being said, the aura that we get from all the things around us speaks volumes. It is important to take into considerate the type of aura that is being given off through the media, politics, and other social aspects that shape our world into what it is.
After Wednesday's class, I would have to agree with Savannah, that the notion of authenticity, or "realness" of something, is indeed very complex. However, when I first see a piece of art, I suppose I do wonder how the artist got the idea for such a piece, the motivation or story behind it, or if there is historical context behind its creation.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin’s statement, that "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 to be" (38) is something to consider. When I read this passage, I think of the thousands of little pictures my younger brother has drawn for me. I cherish the artwork he proudly presents me from time to time. Behind its creation are love and a familiar bond. He draws me pictures to express his love for me, he writes cute little phrases on the bottom to further confirm his adoring motives for the piece.
Now, these pictures are not exquisitely complex pieces of art. They have come from the hands of a 6, 7, and 8 year old, and could be easily replicated. However, as soon as someone else replicates the piece, it does indeed lose part of its authenticity. As Savannah points out, the significance of something’s aura is a complex but important idea. The aura of something relates to its uniqueness. The uniqueness behind what the art is truly representing; the underlying message or meaning (Savannah).
Therefore, the worth of the pictures my brother draws for me are not in the drawing itself, but in the values and history behind them. If we were to consider just one drawing we would see that his original piece of work has a unique history to it, a unique and authentic reason for his drawing it. As soon as someone else reproduces it or replicates it, the love behind it, the true motivation behind its creation is no longer there. The replication would thus lose the true meaning of the picture. The replication would not represent what the original piece intended to stand for; it’s true intention lost in translation.
I found a photo online that backs up the ideas that Benjamin wishes to relate to us, and that also wraps up what Savannah (and I) seem to understand. Click on the link below to see the image. http://sculpture.uk.com/images/clarke_what_is_real_is_not_the_external_form_but_the_essence_of_things_for_web_artistwork6.jpg