2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

What a wonderful, enlightening essay. So far, I've been reading over our assigned essays with an eye to finding something I wanted to argue against, something I disagreed with, but there's not much in "The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction" I wanted to argue against. Benjamin says, "that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art." I wonder if it's a "good" thing or a "bad" thing that the "aura" of the work of art "withers in the age of mechanical reproduction." On the one hand, if the "withering" of the "aura" of an original piece of art didn't happen, the "average person" wouldn't have access to images of the Sistine Chapel, or the music of Beethoven; and the cathedral, as Benjamin says, would not be able to "(leave) its locale to be received in the studio of a lover of art." Perhaps we are fortunate to live in this age of mechanical reproduction because the "beauty" of all of these creations can now flow easily into our daily lives, even at the push of a button. But on the other hand, in ignoring the "authority" of original pieces of art, and "authentic things" in general, we may fall prey to what I believe Baudrillard was warning us against: our simulating reality instead of actually experiencing it. Indeed, Benjamin's thought that "the contemporary masses" have a "bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction...every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness, its reproducion" seems strikingly close to Baudrillard's idea that "we live amid the interminable reproduction of ideals, phantasies, images and dreams which are now behind us, yet which we must continue to reproduce in a sort of inescapable indifference."

However, it strikes me more as fortunate than unfortunate to be able to see copies of original pieces of art than not to be able to see copies of original pieces of art, which are scattered around the planet, hundreds or thousands of miles away from us. I'm beginning to think, "to hell with the loss of the original's 'aura,' since I and millions of other people are allowed to see these things we would not be able to see otherwise." Even copies can be "authentic." To me, and this may seem naive to some people, even more important than the idea of a work of art's "aura" is the idea of a work of art's "beauty," however many millions of definitions may be attached to that word. I would argue that while a work of art's "aura" may be compromised in this "age of mechanical reproduction," a work of art's "beauty" is not necessarily compromised: one can still see the "beauty" in a work of art from a copy of a work of art. The "beauty" may be degraded (due to bad photography, film, or a bad copy), or even enhanced (due to excellent photography), but it is still visible in a copy. And perhaps as long as the "beauty" in a work of art is retained in its copy, nothing else matters. However, perhaps the ideas of "beauty" and "aura" are dependent on each other to some degree, and if one doesn't see an original work of art in person, one loses not just the sense of its "aura," but also some of the sense of its "beauty." I'd be curious to see what other people think about the idea of "beauty" versus "aura."

Another important phenemonon in this "age of mechanical reproduction" is well-articulated by Benjamin: "for the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility." Nowadays, artists are aware of the "increasing opportunities for the exhibition of their products," aware of the increasing possibility to have their art works seen by more people because of how easy it is to produce copies of their work, and artists may create work IN ORDER THAT that it can be reproduced. Perhaps it is nothing but an advantage, to the artist and the viewer alike, to be able to turn art work into a "commodity" more easily than before...

I also found Benjamin's discussion of the art of photography very interesting, and agree with him that the "primary question" is not -- and never should have been -- whether photography is an "art," but how and to what degree "the very invention of photography had...transformed the entire nature of art." I was saying to Areca earlier this week that I envy photography's ability to create so many realistic images so quickly, while I may spend months on a single drawing. I think that if one wants to be a representational drawer or painter, as I do, one cannot and should not deny the power of photography in reproducing reality. More and more I'm trying to incorporate photography into my drawing, since I believe the two skills do not need to "rival" each other and can in fact greatly compliment each other.

I haven't entirely finished reading Benjamin's essay, but this is enough writing for now...

Rowan, I tried to get a post up so you wouldn’t be the only one, but my reactions are so mixed, I am reading the words but it not moving me as of yet.

So I’ll just comment on aura and beauty, I think the two are different phenomenon but closely related. The aura can be felt through the beauty of a work, or the beauty of a work is there because the aura is powerful. I agree with you that beauty can be seen in a copy, like seeing a picture in a magazine of a sculpture, but then if you get a chance to be in the room with the sculpture, that is when the aura is felt. I also don't think that aura has to be beauty. I think of Aura as an encompassing feeling coming off the object itself. I am thinking about Martin Puryear's work, how it looks beautiful in photos and in actuality the craftsmanship,scale, and materials together give the work an aura to be felt even more that their visual proportions of beauty.

As Rowan pointed out in his comments, it is “more fortunate than unfortunate to be able to see copies of original pieces of art than not to be able to see copies of original pieces of art.� Although I can certainly respect the true aura of an artwork, I’m not sure that there’s any real down side to reproducing its image and distributing it for the world to see. When I look at a picture of an artwork on the internet, I am certainly not deluded or fooled in to thinking that the image contains the aura of the piece. I do not assume that I am experiencing it fully, but instead that I am able to acknowledge its existence and understand a summary of what it might be. There are very few people in the world who believe otherwise. Even a person with his or her head stuck in the sand knows that art can be powerful, and I would argue that occasionally a bit of that power is translated through the pages of a magazine, which is then followed by an internet search, and hopefully eventually leads to actual viewing of the work. I think there is power in the ability to reproduce and distribute images in the name of education and information.

Even so, as Benjamin states, “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.� Each work owns its own history, and that can only be experienced in person. It brings the work into focus, gives it context, and allows for immersion into its physicality. This is how I would define the “aura� of a piece of art. This is obviously something that cannot be denied or ignored. While I was convinced by Baudrillard’s argument that we simulate reality rather than experience it, for some reason Benjamin’s similar claim seems less viable. Yes, we live in a culture of mass production and reproduction. But I don’t always believe that the reproduction of an image leads to some sort of alternate reality. Sometimes it just lets others know that somewhere in this big world, someone made a worthwhile piece of art, and that those of us who are able should go experience its aura.

Finally, in regards to Benjamin’s positions, I’m still unclear about how to deal with a medium like photo. In this case, doesn’t each reproduction have its own aura? For example, when Areca takes a picture of her family members in a particular situation, the reproduction of that moment in time possesses its own aura. Yes, this photo can be reproduced endlessly. As the author states, “to ask for the ‘authentic’ print makes no sense,� but I’m not sure any of these copies is void of an aura. Each copy has its own history and context, and each also contains the original idea in all of its strength. How are others interpreting this medium in relation to the essay?

I also wanted to respond more directly to Rowan’s question about beauty versus aura. I defined my own idea of what aura is in my original comment, and i would say that to me, it is very different from beauty. There is power in an aura, and that power is not necessarily beautiful. It might be terrifying or close or strange. I think that every successful piece of artwork possesses and aura, even if the work it is ugly or grotesque.

Walter defines the “aura� of an art object by the major characteristics that accompany an original work. Original works often belong to a certain class or religious/spiritual group and have a specific destination (i.e. church, auditorium), where one must make the effort to get to. Once within physical proximity to the work, one can fully contemplate it.. The original art object holds an authority that the reproduction loses. The printed image or photo and film becomes accessible to mass culture and “is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.� Thus “the total function of art is reversed� as art becomes based in politics rather than ritual.

As a printmaker, this essay becomes extremely interesting, especially concerning my views on the multiple as an important part of my art-making process. I consider myself to be manually creating a work of art by drawing and designing my matrix, which I will then print off of. I wonder then if my plate could be considered an original art object. In any case, I further wonder if even small editions of hand printed images would lack “aura�. Certainly the prints would not be entering mass societies’ daily life, they would only be accessible to a small few who either view it in a gallery or in the home of the purchaser. The print would still have to be viewed in specific destinations and would demand contemplation. Would Walter perhaps assign a numerical limit to the amount of prints in an edition before the works lack “aura�, or do they automatically suffer this loss? I also start to think about how I utilize the multiple in the form of “printstallation.’ In this process I compose reproductions to form one unique piece of art, similar to Sam’s installations of his J.C. Penny photos. Would these installations, although comprised of reproduction, maintain an “aura�, according to Walter? I am undecided as to whether I’d like to sacrifice aura for politics, ideally I’d like my art to maintain both.

In terms of the broader picture, I definitely agree with you, Rowan, when you point out the benefits of reproduction. Especially when mass production pertains to accessibility by the general public. Street art, like spray stencils, in addition to magazines, film and music convey important political messages. I also believe we should not ignore the authority of the authentic. Members of “mass society� should take the responsibility to be aware of the difference between viewing a copy of art versus the experience of an original, and as Mel mentioned, many are. Coincidentally, U of M was the only grad school application that required me to send four examples of my original works in addition to my digital images. Although it seemed like a hassle at the time, I can understand the importance and commend their interest in the physicality, quality and “aura� of my authentic prints.

In response to the “beauty� vs. “aura� discussion, I think is it much easier to define “aura.� Beauty is such an open-ended word with no boundaries, or as they say “in the eye of the beholder.� Like Mel mentioned, a work of art may have a strong aura but is grotesque, but that just cycles back around to one’s individual definition of ugly. Although Walter’s definition of “aura� may not be exactly like yours or mine, there seems to be a similar understanding of its connotations. Either way, both a reproduction and an original have the ability to ignite an interest, excitement, or aversion to a work.

One of Mel's comments describes what I consider to be the important aspect of copies: "I think there is power in the ability to reproduce and distribute images in the name of education and information." However "vicariously," reproductive technologies have a way of helping educate and inform people. But vicarious information is still information. It's interesting, though, because in Rosalind Krauss's evaluation of Benjamin in her essay "Reinventing the Medium," Krauss almost seems to be trying to warn us about the "commodification" of art: "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction will now see the photographic...as both source and symptom of a full-scale demise of this aura across all of culture, so that art itself, as celebrator of the unique and the authentic, will empty out completely." I also agree with Mel that the "aura" of a piece of art is different than its "beauty," and to me the "aura" of a piece is vastly less important... While it would be nice to be able to travel the world and see all of the original works of art in person, I can still see the "beauty" of a piece by opening a book.

Robin raises an interesting question about printmaking: what "aura" do prints have? Is the plate itself a work of art that has an "aura," or just the prints made from that plate? Where does the "aura" start and stop with printmaking? This discussion also makes me wonder about some of Ali's "public art," which he projects onto buildings in public places. Where is the "original" and where is the "aura" in Ali's work? How does Ali's work relate to Benjamin's ideas about mechanical reproduction, especially since every public space experience Ali creates is "original"? It's interesting to think that since the "originals" in Ali's work are "transitory," so, too, is the "aura" of those pieces...at least until he moves to a different building.

I’d like to respond to the beauty vs. aura discussion. Let’s break down some possible components of “aura� for a second, since it’s such a subjective word (like beauty).
1) The ‘feeling’ of the presence of an art object. (I believe this is a real thing, though it will be drastically different in character to different observers).
2) The way the object signifies power, devotion, desire, etc through intangible or subliminal qualities (again, this depends on the cultural background and personality of the observer)
3) The way the object functions as a nexus of or inspiration for ritual interactions (whether religious, social, sexual, political, etc.)
4) The way the object’s location or context influences the viewers’ interpretation of 1, 2, and 3.
There may be more ways to describe aura, but that’s all I can think of right now. What is important to me about this concept is its relationship to an artwork’s ability to function as something more than an object to be examined and admired. Something with an aura can affect one’s imagination and behavior in a way that something aura-less just can’t.

Some examples to correspond to the aura components above:
1) Too subjective to describe – see number 2…
2) A lapsed catholic walking into a cathedral might consider attending mass again (or have an anxiety attack and leave). The same person looking at a picture of the cathedral would more likely admire the design of the architecture and stained glass.
3) A giant statue of a military leader would make a good focal point for a giant fascist rally. A photograph of that statue would not.
4) If one of my favorite bands played in the lobby of Regis at noon, no one would dance, though some passing students might intellectually appreciate the sounds. If the same band played in the illegal show-space down the street, everyone would dance. ~OR~ A vase on a marble pedestal at the Met will almost certainly inspire more active appreciation than the same vase on my kitchen table at home.

I think Benjamin makes a number of interesting points about the potential ways that mass production can influence the aura of an object. However, I would contend that mass production doesn’t necessarily erase aura. It just complicates things. Now I am considering aura in a more liberal and general sense than Benjamin intended. However, although the aura that I describe doesn’t depend on the “unique existence of the work of art,� (key word here is ‘unique’) it is functionally the same as Benjamin’s – it derives its power from ritual. I could rant about ritual for quite some time, but I think the questions of aura are among the least interesting in this article, and I haven’t even started writing my “serious� essay yet.

I agree with Rowan and the rest about the positives of being able to view copies an original work. As we were talking last week, the internet is collapsing physical space. It's not quite as crucial to live in one of the art centers(New York, London, Berlin...) because people can see and read about the current art trends from a far. With out this sort of exchange of information, things progress at much slower rate. Maybe a slower progression of cultural forces is a good thing, though in terms of art and music I quite enjoy democratization of it. I also think that the widespread dispersal of images of artworks serves to promote the real thing. It's similar to the way that CD's or MP3s serve to draw people to a bands live shows.

The whole notion of the "aura" is a tricky one. I understand what Walter Benjamin is talking about and I agree that the original has a presence that can't be duplicated. Objects that are photographed and reproduced via offset printing or digitally via the internet are being viewed through a filter of halftone dots and pixels. The part where it gets tricky for me is when talking about artists like Sherrie Levine and Richard Prince. Since their original works are already appropriated reproductions the aura is recreated in their work. Some would argue that their work doesn't have an aura, but I think it does. When you see an original print of an appropriation in a museum setting, it is automatically recontextualized and given authority. When viewing reproductions of their work it begins to take on a different sort of aura because it becomes a reproduction of a reproduction of a reproduction.

Benjamin's idea of the original, authentic work of art "being based on ritual" and the work that is made for reproduction being based on politics is quite interesting. What he's saying here is that, historically, original works of art were rooted in the tradition of the "ceremonial object destined to serve in a cult". Work that is created to be reproduced is political in nature because it is meant to be reproduced and distributed, or at least it has the potential. This whole notion makes sense but I don't know if it is always the case. When looking at the interactive work that Yui showed last week it is hard to imagine that it has political underpinnings. It is purely aesthetic and mathematical which I consider to be linked to nature and spirituality. On the other hand the whole idea of the Unix operating system and the open source movement is very political by nature. It encapsulates the ideals of communism. If you are making interactive work that you give away you are bypassing the ideals of capitalism. As we have been discovering in our past readings, many of these Authors talk in terms of absolutes. I think it is possible to make work that has an aura and is political in nature. A great example of this is the revolutionary spirit and the one of a kind aura of the modernist painters and sculptors.

One thing that Benjamin did not talk much about is the idea of art as ‘communication’ between conscious sentient beings, and how the age of mechanical reproduction has effected that communication. He scratches the surface when he says “above all, it enables the original to meet the beholder halfway, be it in the form of a photograph or a phonograph record.� Unlimited reproduction can, in theory, have the ability to supply every human being with a copy of a certain work of art in physical form. The question then is how much the ‘aura’ of the work is retained/lost in the reproduction, or more importantly, where the ‘aura’ in the artwork lives.
In the physical craft of the piece, or in the message communicated.

I agree with Jonathan that mass production doesn’t necessarily erase ‘aura’, it just complicates things. I’m beginning to think that the reproduction of work brings more attention to the work itself and the message/feeling it communicates than it does to the artist/maker. Could mechanical reproduction aid in the death of the author? When I think about seeing an original photograph that was printed by the hand of the artist in the darkroom, I will pay some attention to the craft of it, the physical unique production of that piece. If that same image is reproduced by a third or fourth party years later, I will pay more attention to the content of that photograph and not the craft. So the ‘aura’ shifts for me from the craft to the content in this case. Speaking of phonographs, I think the ‘aura’ of the music can actually grow and get stronger with mechanical reproduction. There is something about the idea of a large number of people all resonating together off the grooves of a phonograph that deserves attention. The beautiful thing about that idea is how each person can be experiencing the music in their own unique way, while still collectively resonating together as a whole. So in music, I believe the mechanical reproduction can aid in the growth of the artwork’s energy and vitality, if energy and vitality are part of the artwork’s ‘aura’. Benjamin describes ‘aura’ as ‘uniqueness’. But if a wonderful album is pressed into 5,000 copies of vinyl, the album is still unique, and now it has 5,000 other people’s eardrums and imaginations resonating with it in their own unique way.

I also couldn’t help but think about how Walter Benjamin would feel about the world wide web. Would he see it as a natural progression from film? Specifically the ability of the ease and quickness of film being made and distributed at a global scale (youtube). Just like the history of photography being something controlled in the beginning by those with the technology and money, then with the invention of digital cameras, it has become easy and instant for the masses to create, control, and share. The internet could have an effect on film as a medium just like digital photography has had on traditional film photography.

I agree with Mel's comment about the aura of a work. Some of the more troublesome unsettling works have the most powerful presence. As for beauty, it is such a subjective thing. I like what Jennifer said about the beauty of a work being determined by the power of it's aura. This keeps the definition of beauty a little more open ended.

Just as the majority of you have stated before me, I too feel that the reproduction of art is not a bad thing. Our world may seem so much bigger today than ever before because we now know it or have access to knowledge of it as a whole, but also because of this access, it seems smaller than ever before as well. There is a lot of art out there, art from previous eras, and new art being made daily. For the majority of artists and society to experience, learn, and benefit from these existing objects, I feel that that majority will experience the art through its reproduction. The culture of competition and speed has been dominating the west for decades if not longer, to keep up or at least informed, reproduction plays a valuable role.

The printing press preceded lithography, lithography preceded photography, photography, preceded film, video, digital recording into the era of the internet and You-tube. All of these, as Sam mentioned are forms of communication. Art can have “beauty� and its original “aura�, but it also has a message. Whether meant for religious, political, or other purposes entirely. The message of art in today’s civilization will only reach its greatest potential audience through means of reproduction, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as much as the nature of our age and certain mediums.

“Aura� and “beauty� don’t work the same all the time, and can differ for each viewer. The majority of artwork I have experienced has been through photographs in books, as opposed to the real deal in galleries and museums. As an undergraduate studying painting, I abandoned the square and rectangle in search of my own identity. I researched and looked at works of other artists that had done the same. I remember finding Frank Stella’s Protractor series and enjoying them for their use of form, color and line. I respected their place in history, their “feeling�, size and simplicity. Soon after I had an opportunity to visit New York, and got to experience one of his larger works that I had only experienced before through a bright four inch square in a book. The huge painting seemed somehow dull and lifeless, the canvas seemed to be showing the wear and tear of time, and when I examined the sides of the painting, it was obvious that the alternatively shaped canvas hadn’t been stretched very well. The lack of craftsmanship in the piece broke the works spell, and for me a photograph of it contained more “feeling� or “aura� than the actual work did.

The differences that Benjamin describes between original art and mechanically reproduced art are valid—his description of the aura that comes with authentic, original art not made by machine is a real social/psychological phenomenon. There does seem to be a specific personality, a human energy that one can glean from handmade, unique items—I’m thinking of paintings, sculptures, bowls, quilts, ect. In class last week when we discussed this idea of aura, we all seemed to recognize what this meant and acknowledge its existence. In fact, as a (primarily) photographer sometimes I crave that relationship to an object in the world that is unique, and that one's hands can shape and alter.

While I accept Benjamin's basic premise that there is a difference in the mechanically reproduced arts like photography, film, music, and to some extent printmaking, I don’t think that these reproducible arts negate the power of unique object. (I say printmaking to some extent because I agree with Robin that it isn’t on the same level of reproducibility as the others—I tend to think of a split laying with what can be digitized and sent all over the world in an instant, which prints cannot). Benjamin says, “That which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.� Or as Krauss summarized Benjamin's essay, " The photographic... as both source and symptom of a full-scale demise of this aura across all of culture, so that art itself, as celebrator of the unique and the authentic, will empty out completely." It seems to me that while reproduction has altered art and culture considerably, there is no loss of the aura for handmade objects. I absolutely think that photos, as well as music and movies have a separate aura all their own, as Mel mentioned—I don’t think I would be so enthralled with them otherwise. This aura has an alternate meaning from unique objects, that has little or nothing to do with the way they were manufactured, but instead concentrates more on the emotional or social impact of the contents (because that is what remains after you remove the artists hands). These arts can have immense emotional impacts that linger, but one does not necessarily feel more reverence with one copy of the art over another (except maybe with vinyl records, but that's another story). Like most of you, I just can't bring myself to view this addition of media and democratization as a purely detrimental development, nor as a detraction from arts with unique objects, an "emptying out" of art.

Benjamin himself seems to recognize that there are separate functions, not mutually negatory, for the objects with the aura he speaks of and the mechanically reproduced objects. He says, “Painting simply is in no position to present an object for simultaneous collective experience, as it was possible for architecture at all times, for the epic poem in the past, and for the movie today.� And, “The painting invites the spectator to contemplation; before it the spectator can abandon himself to his associations. Before the movie frame he cannot do so.� Perhaps the intimacy of a handmade object is like a private conversation, versus the birthday party sing-along of the more communicative media. They promote different kinds of interaction, both essential.

In the understanding that knowledge is beneficial to being a great artist, I acknowledge that one should read this article by Walter Benjamin. Having this information to reference when making art improves ones vocabulary as to reaching a larger, or more educated audience, forgive me for being simple in my analysis of this argument over Mechanical reproductions and Works of art.
This overview of the changing perceptions of human culture on viewing art, was an adventure in getting lost and finding my way again. Benjamin introduced some interesting points, the power of the original work of art verses the act of reproduction, this area was a little hazy for me, my definition of mechanical may be different than his. I was confused by the comparison of film to art. It made me think about the time based verses object and what was getting the most attention. Silent films I can see rival art works, but it’s a totally different approach to the human leisure time activity. Yes this may have created a mass response to art seen in a mass, such as a film screening, but works of art are still art and there will always be a museum with art in it. Like a theater where one goes to view films. This disection of film and its changing of our perceptions and values as a growing culture is a good argument; I didn’t feel it had anything to do with authenticity verses a copy; film and photo are made with reproduction in mind. That is the nature of its media and processing. It is art as well, but as before this is two different ideas, viewing objects that imbue curiosity is very different than having a film stimulate perception and they may draw different audiences as well.
Playing around with the term aura was reminiscent of our past readings, Mainly Duchamp and his views. I don’t know if it is the Aura that emancipates us from tradition Kandinsky may think so, and I thought, why do we have to be emancipated from tradition? Then I remembered, we already are. Freed beyond belief but held by history. This is where politics enters, no matter what we are reading, politics of the people enter. Art must be for and about its people. I was surprised by the beauty in the Epilogue, I was thinking why is this in this article, then In the notes, I found, “Mass reproduction is aided especially by the reproduction of the masses� how bringing the masses face to face, constitutes a form of human behavior that favors mechanical (equipment). I wish he would have used the word reproductions.

Benjamin continually used painting and film for comparisons throughout the essay, and there was the analogy of a surgical operation comparing painters and cameramen to magicians and surgeons. “Magician and surgeon compare to painter and cameraman. The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web. There is a tremendous difference in the pictures they obtain. That if the painter is a total one that of the cameraman consists of multiple fragments, which are assembled under a new law. Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by the film is incomparably more significant than the painter, since it offers precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art.�

Maybe at the time the essay was written it was easier to compare a cameraman and a painter. I have a hard time even trying to make or rationalize the comparison since they are so different. With all of the technological advancements since this comparison was originally made, I question how Benjamin would make that comparison today in the digital world or if he even would.

Sam also questioned how Benjamin would react to the internet, digital cameras, and YouTube and the optical world of what Benjamin refers to the “cameraman� vs. today, and everyone’s ability to be a cameraman.

I found Bart’s response to “aura� and “beauty� unexpected. He describes seeing Frank Stella’s Protactor series and found the series to be dull and lifeless, showing wear and tear as well as the poor craftsmanship of the stretched canvas. For Bart, the photograph in a book, in which you can’t see the wear and quality of the craftsmanship had more “aura� or “feeling� for him that seeing the actual work did. While I too, am always looking at the craftsmanship of work when viewing it in person, for me that plays into the “aura�, in addition to the detail, scale, color; everything that’s never going to be accurately represented in a book. I have been disappointed seeing an actual work; perhaps it was glorified in an art history course or taken over by mechanical reproduction?

I’m interested in the discussion that is happening about the aura of art. Though I agree with everyone about the benefits of mass production of information, something can also be said for the physicality of the original. For instance, the learning that one experiences from an old book is different than the learning acquired from a website. The book has “the presence in time and space.� It has physicality. It has a smell. It’s been passed from one person to another. These satellite qualities of an original make a richer experience. More connections form in the brain from a smell than any other sensory experience. An object that has a physical presence creates more connections in one’s mind.
Also, the use of the word aura in and of it’s self is loaded. It alludes to mystic traditions. To me it seems as though Benjamin suggests that an object made by a person possesses qualities that are lessened each time the object is disconnected from the individual.

A side note on printmaking: I wonder if a print art print has an aura relative to a print made to reproduce an original work.

Oops, I meant fine art print.

Also, I was thinking that maybe I'm interpreting the word aura a little differently or maybe incorrectly. Upon reading the essay, I thought that an object made by a conscious being possesses something intangible that a machine made object does not.

I wish I could have read it more profoundly (I will eventually) because I find this writing was very intriguing, inspiring and relevant to my work of art. The question about reproductivity in art is something one cannot stop questioning now days, especially if you create a digital medium. I am not sure if I understood the idea completely, but the idea of aura was very convincing and inspirational that it seems to give me a some kind of direction to my work. It is amazing to know that such perspective was emerged over seventy years ago and is still inspiring us.

In a digital medium, unless you combine a physical object to it, has no physical form. And if a photograph is accused of being a reproductive medium, then a programming is out of a question. Multiples of perfect duplications could be made in split of a second, and with the accessibility to the Internet, you can send the work anywhere you like, and can be observed by as many people as possible, as long as the computer is there. In terms of Benjamin's description, this can be a serious threat to the aura. But my interpretation of it was rather optimistic. If the aura is only to reside in the “original�, it is important to define what consists the original. If a photography loses it's aura by duplication, it must mean that the aura does not reside in the actual physical component of this art. Because the duplication of it is physically the same (in rational sense). And if the physical form does not define aura, then what gives a meaning to the work of art is when it is performed by the creator. A piece of program does not contain aura, but it is infused when the artist performs it. This could mean that a different aura could be injected to the same piece of code and have different meanings. I remember the “death of author� and now I am more convinced that the author must not die. It's the author, or the performer, who gives a deeper meaning to the work of art.

Another aspect I found positive in Benjamin's essay is regarding mass-distribution. I find a great value in the media for children. This value might be purely nostalgic, but a comic artist has greatly influenced my view towards creation. I have always been seeking for a way to justify a kind of media that is positively mass-produced. And Benjamin seems to share a similar thoughts in relation to the “media for proletariat�. Although he seem to support the idea of sharing the media among people, he also revealed some apprehensive thoughts about the use of it, using Fascism and Propaganda as examples. I think this problem could be dealt, if we could allow “receivers� to become “senders� as Benjamin also described. And this is something I am capable of doing, with the use of programming.

As Sam mentioned, I am also curious to know what Benjamin would think of the Internet. I think his statements are still applicable to the current media we face today.

My essay this week deals with both the Krauss and the Benjamin pieces, and I've posted it under the Krauss piece.

I'm interested in Robin's comments about where the line is drawn for what has an "aura". In printmaking, it seems wrong to say that the original object, like the plate, block or screen, has the aura. It's a tool, not the final product. Though a printmaker can spend days carefully forming that tool, the final prints would be the aura-holding object. Also each print is slightly different, yes? I'm also interested in Rachel's question about a fine art print versus a reproduction of it-- I think we all would agree that a print made by a printmaker has more aura than a reproduction of that print in a magazine or on the internet.
The question of installation is tricky as well. One can take a bunch of manufactured elements as the medium and place them together in a unique way. Is this much different than arranging paint you didn't make yourself to make a masterpiece?