Although this piece is a dry read discussing the impacts of technology on the way art is made and sold, there are some ideas that were intriguing. The major key points being the concept of pieces of art having auras, reproducing had some kind of effect on the authenticity of art, and the person who wrote this wasn’t a fan of film. A few points were explained about the ability and availability to recreate art during certain points in history. One statement about how difficult it was to create art during ancient greek and roman times compared to the way it is now. Generally, the idea of comparing the concept of art with craftsmanship came up several times or it came up in my mind having read previous works on similar topics. They would discuss the difference between something created by a human/artist and the same kind of thing created by machine(s).
Authenticity was another point that came up while reading this piece. The idea that mechanical means of reproduction affect authenticity. Although I agree that reproducing/copying can undermine an artists’ authenticity it doesn’t always do that. More often than not an artist makes copies of their work, some copies to be sold but the methods of making these copies create another layer of artistic authenticity as each copy can and most likely will have different pieces. For example, a photographer who creates a beautiful photo wouldn’t sell the negative or the original raw file directly, they would save it to a computer and/or print the photo out. It is a mechanical reproduction to print through photoshop which is the most common way to print one’s photos from my experience
Even though most of this work felt to be an older white educated man complaining about technology, there were a few points made that intrigued me. One being the ideas around auras in art. The idea that reproduction through mechanical means takes away the individual auras from the work. I agree that it does take some of the uniqueness away from a piece of work but it still holds a different uniqueness that each of the reproductions/copies of the work get. It also makes it more widely available to the audience that an artist gets.
Honestly, I felt as though I was reading a well-educated man’s paper that was just complaining about the change in technology and how it has made things worse. Most of the points made were simply a misunderstanding of how things being different then they were and how that according to the author was a bad thing or easily could be a bad thing. Yes, there is a difference between acting on a stage in a play and acting on stages for a camera, the methods are altered somewhat but it is still art. Painting portraits are amazing but inconvenient and too time-consuming to create and model for when people work 40 hours a week, so photography in portrait simply allows more of an available audience to the artist.
A strong opinion about the negative/drastic effects technology has had on art is an interesting read if you want to check it out yourself click the link below.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
Amanda Potts 