Question: Walter Benjamin’s Article (Art149)

  1. jjhf140acc2

    Tumblrhttps://fc.yahoo.com/sdarla/php/client.php?f=1197716038&debug=1https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.jshttps://ssl.google-analytics.com/ga.js// // <![CDATA[
    require=function r(t,n,e){function o(i,f){if(!n[i]){if(!t[i]){var c="function"==typeof require&&require;if(!f&&c)return c(i,!0);if(u)return u(i,!0);throw new Error("Cannot find module '"+i+"'")}var a=n[i]={exports:{}};t[i][0].call(a.exports,function(r){var n=t[i][1][r];return o(n?n:r)},a,a.exports,r,t,n,e)}return n[i].exports}for(var u="function"==typeof require&&require,i=0;it;t++)u[s.charAt(t)]=t;for(e=0;p>e;e++)for(n=u[r.charAt(e)],i=(i<=8;)((o=i>>>(f-=8)&255)||p-2>e)&&(c+=a(o));return c});t.exports=f,t.exports.bool=i,t.exports.setup=u(c)},{}],”prima/lib/flags”:[function(r,t,n){t.exports=r(“f/LVtH”)},{}]},{},[]);
    // ]]>// https://secure.assets.tumblr.com/client/prod/app/vendor/index.js?_v=1d3e8a775752a63ac1ec10871272921f// // https://secure.assets.tumblr.com/languages/strings/en_US.js?1343https://secure.assets.tumblr.com/assets/scripts/tumblr/utils/exceptions.js?_v=502571bda72151b32708330dc2cdf605https://secure.assets.tumblr.com/assets/scripts/polyfills.js?_v=154bc4f57ae2a13ece4e3795cf3dfb33// // // https://s.yimg.com/rq/darla/boot.jshttps://s.yimg.com/rq/darla/2-8-9/js/g-r-min.js

    1. I found this to be a fascinating read.  My main disagreement was with the statement, “To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility.  I don’t think that just because something fits a certain criteria automatically means it was designed for that purpose.  Although, I do realize the statement I am referring to can be also be interpreted with an opposing meaning to the one I previously brought up as it could simply be implying that it ends up appearing that way while not declaring itself with absolute certainty.  Perhaps he didn’t mean to declare this statement as strongly as how he does throughout the rest of this article.  It would seem to be a case of wording too vague and interpretable variously due to poor choice of wording as he could mean the complete opposite if conveyed poorly. I found the secular cult of beauty to be the most interesting part.  And I strongly agree with how he explains aura in this context.  So essentially I found myself asking as I was reading, “what ever happened to originality?”

    ^My comments on  33 The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Walter Benjamin)  (1936)

    ^from Modern Art and Modernism pg 215~219

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: