Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
what I found interesting about this reading from Walter Benjamin was his concept of "aura" and whether mechanically reproduced art can have it, of course since this has been published, work word mechanically could probably be rewrote as digital or internet based pieces although I feel the question can remain the same. Can work produced by machines have the same emotions or results as a work created by artist? And if the machine produced pieces can have the same results, does this imply that works by physical artist will or could be obsoletes?
As someone who has grown up basically in the digital age, I believe its possible to have an aura regardless of the media. Installations, or metaphors are universal and a piece can have an aura of emotion or reaction regardless of the artist (human vs. machine).
If you focus specifically on aura and the properties of an aura, you can see that electronic media or digital arts through different means of expression can produce or meet this criteria. Artist that create innovative, unique environments for work that is produced electronically can transmit aura or emotion through their work. Artist using digital media can produce aura by creating or using space. Contradicting Benjamin's belief by following his definitions.
Although, I am curious exactly what aura means in the current art world and if aura is even important anymore, or for that matter does it even truly exist? The world is changing quickly everyday and values and ideals can shift minute by minute. Just like photography was once considered 'not a true art' it was eventually accepted and now considered 'fine art'. So is it possible that digital art will cross that line, or has it even already?
We are housed in the college of art, not the college of sciences.
thoughts?
Comments
That's a good question. I believe the artist is what needs to be considered here. The media/medium is inconsequential in the end. An artist is a creator. In the end digital photography will not have the stigma it does now, what we will honor are the wonderful pictures of this time, and nobody will care whether it was film or digital.
Posted by: HDR | May 28, 2007 04:17 PM
I agree, art is in the creator not the medium and the lines between film and digital have so quickly become blurred. I see a lot of beauty in science though which you could say is "natural art"
Posted by: Paul Rumsby | August 13, 2007 05:21 PM