from Lee Woodman [note the excellent use of referencing to support his point of view]
The role of the ‘Authentic’ in design today
In his thesis, ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, Walter Benjamin argues that “from a photographic negative one can make any number of prints; to ask for ‘the authentic’ makes no sense”. This is true for the art form of photography as it is created in this context; with the ability to reproduce as many images as desired. The idea of the ‘authentic’ would seem to be the wrong question to ask in this genre, and indeed the widening genre of digital art. However, Benjamin’s prediction about the loss of ‘aura’ for art that has been mechanically reproduced has proved to be invalid. But rather there is a heightened sense of the ‘authentic’ in art generally.
This view is supported by the observation of millions of visitors to Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa in the Louvre each year.(1) Even though this is one of the most reproduced images in the world the original still has what Benjamin describes as an ‘aura’. Also as pointed out in the Artforum by Sidney Tillm, “we still bid wildly at auctions and employ armies of scholars to find the ‘original’, the ‘authentic’ masterpiece.”(2) This shows that even in in today’s world of digital design and manufacture the authentic or original is perhaps more important than ever.
In contrast, it has to be considered that Benjamin wrote this piece in 1936 and could not have foreseen the advancements in digital reproduction and use as we see it today. Therefore the notion of the ‘authentic’ has a limited importance in the world of digital design and manufacture. An example of where the authentic does not apply would be genre of film, what is the original? the uncut initial take? or the finished master? In this instance the master is more like the die or mold for mass production of a product. Or even more bizarre would be to request an original of a computer game or interactive software. In this context the ‘authentic’ has no relevance or importance.
(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4413303.stm Accessed 15th August 2010-08-15
(2) As cited in Douglas Davis, ‚The work of art in the age of digital reproduction (an evolving thesis: 1991-1995)‘, Leonardo, vol. 28, no.5, 1995, p.384.
From Jodi Meadows:
Modern Vision
Is there a role for the ‘authentic’ in an age of digital design and manufacture? A question posed by W.Benjamin when arguing that the invention of photography has changed the aura of art, and now deems the ‘authentic’ original such as the negative of a photograph a meaningless part of the artwork to have. He also added that traditional art’s authenticity and aura came from the work of a hand, photography changed art from the work of a hand to the work of the eye which bought an essence of truth to art. Photography/ film revealed moments of truth, people now had the ability to capture the truth, this opened up a whole other world of knowledge that had not been accessible until the invention of the camera. The evolution of man moving closer to the machine set a movement away from the values of cultural rituals within traditional art and replaces it with more political values.
I partially agree with the statement made by Benjamin, in the age of digital design and manufacture people are interested in the product (the “photograph”) of the design rather then the prototype (the “negative”) that shows the components of the finished product. As stated by Benjamin there is a cult revolved around beauty but instead of the beauty that a brush on canvas creates, they are looking more for the ‘untouched’ look, where the hand has had no part the manufacture of the product. However in my opinion people have not stopped searching for the authenticity in products, for example people after purchasing a mass produced product will search endlessly for accessories to personalize and authenticate their product, for them this gives their product an aura of it’s own. From Ella Kroch:
Modern Vision
In ‘The work of art in the age of Mechanical Production’, Walter Benjamin voices his opinions on individuality and the affects of mechanical reproduction on art. Up until the invention of the camera, value of art was linked to it’s uniqueness and the ‘magic’ surrounding the piece, but nowadays what gives art it’s value does not seem to be so clear. The destruction, or at least attenuation of this ‘aura’ due to the rise in mechanical production, signals a transition from appreciating art for its unobtainable nature and almost divine, traditional properties often linked to religion, to the new and evolving materialistic desire of the contemporary masses to bring things closer, obtain and hold at a very close range.
Benjamin associates photography with this decline of an ‘aura’ or authenticity of art. Photography has no original. it’s reproducible nature, due to the negative, means that an image is easily accessible, there is no difference between the first developed photograph and the latter developed. Photography meant that for the first time, the middle and lower classes could appreciate and own art works and feel a sense of social standing.
Today, value does not seem to be as closely related to ‘aura’ as it used to be. However, I believe there is still demand for the authentic. The unique existence of an object has been substituted for a plurality of copies, but the role of the authentic still exists. Aura can be compared to nature, for example the dappled shadow of a tree perceived in a unique moment. A photograph can be taken of this moment, but without the feeling of presence, without actually being there, the aura does not exist in the ‘soulless’ image. People do realise this, if this realisation and desire for the original was not present in today’s society, original pieces of art would not be sold. Possession of rare or original objects will always be associated with success and wealth. Interaction with these originals brings about a strong sense of excitement, a feeling which is not experienced in such a way through the viewing of a copy.
No comments:
Post a Comment