Weel 3 - Aura
Marcel Duchamp
Fountain, 1917.
https://magazine.artland.com/what-is-dadaism/
"From an alluring appearance or persuasive structure of sound the work of
art of the Dadaists became an instrument of ballistics. It hit the spectator like a
bullet, it happened to him, thus acquiring a tactile quality." -Walter Benjamin
This art piece is not directly talked about by Benjamin, but the art movement Dadaism is mentioned, and this is one of the most famous from the time. It could also never be replicated with the same reactions from viewers, so I thought it was very important.
This weeks reading was difficult, but compared to last week I really understood what the authors point was, or at least I think I did. Walter Benjamin was a German Jew in 1936 when he wrote this, so obviously he has a very different perspective on art than we do. The main idea that I took away from this article is that an original art piece will always be the most unique and cannot be replicated exactly. Benjamin writes it best, "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." He believed that no matter how well replicated, a piece of art will never have the same uniqueness or aura as when it was originally released.
The word aura is tossed around this article quite a bit and is also the topic of this weeks discussions. So what is aura? With a little bit of research within the article, and outside of it, I have learned that aura is the cultural impact of an art piece and its overall impact in space and time in that moment. That is why it is so hard to replicate an art piece exactly, because the time and space will never be the same again after that one moment. Without exactly mentioning it, (because it did not really exist) Benjamin brings up the topic of AI and how even if something was exactly copied, it creates something new, not the same thing.
I find Benjamin's discussion of actors and on stage presence very interesting. He believes that an on stage actor will have a definite aura compared to an actor filmed then televised. This is something we discussed in the annotations, but I think that there is a certain aura for both situations. I have watched movies where actors portray their roles perfectly on tv, but I have also seen mind blowing plays that have an aura that can never be replicated. It just depends on the situation, but I see Benjamin's point. Watching something on a screen that is rehearsed and reshot compared to the genuine acting of a person is a very different experience.
Printing-making is different from analog photography in my opinion. Though they both require prints to be made, a photographer has to go out into a landscape or set up/find a still life to photograph. A printmaker typically etches a print then produces copies of that. I do not think one or the other is better, they are just different. A photograph typically comes out looking exact every time it is reprinted whereas an etched print can look different with every print depending on the wear and tear of the original etching.
A mechanical reproduction of an original work of art harms its original aura. It is no longer tied to its historical origins and does not have as much of an impact as it did before. I think it can also devalue the original piece of art because if it is everywhere it becomes common, and diminishes the importance of viewing the original in person. Benjamin discusses that the art moves from a "sacred" place in a gallery setting to the public eye. Which makes it less unique.
From an artist perspective, I found this article very interesting. It did not necessarily change my opinions on any specific thing, but made me think more about the aura of my own art pieces. My art right now does not have a very distinct aura because it is not in galleries viewed by thousands of people, but I still think it has a unique presence in the studio. If I ever get to a point where my pieces are in a gallery, I will think back to this article and give thought to the space and time my art is in.
Benjamin, Walter (1935). Essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. New York: Schocken Books, 1969.
Paige, I agree with you on most points. But I think you are wrong that YOUR ART has no aura. It certainly DOES , because you made it! In our time and space, you are so special to other artists around the studio. I realize it is different than say, Mona Lisa, but like Dr. Z said, no one even knew about that painting or knew it that well, until it was stolen!. And also, it gained more notoriety from all the 'Leonardo painted himself as a woman', etc. discourses of Mona all came about!. The difference is time and space.
ReplyDeleteA reproduction of an original work also might be good for study and I am doing it now, so I will let you know! I don't think art reproduction helps anything else, except someone making money.
I reproduced my own art into window drapes, out of my own 'fine art' painting! (So cool to see it in a different way, but mostly done for color!). I don't think it devalues my painting, for one thing, it only has value to me, and maybe my family. But if I got Mona Lisa drapes, it wouldn't devalue how cool it is that is was made by Leonardo. Now my painting just goes with the set! Again, not talking about any differences other than time and space. I don't believe any art is sacred, even the brush strokes on the Sistine Chapel! Knock yourself out, plagiarizers, trying to copy that one!
Wow Pamela thank you so much. That means a ton that you think my art has an aura. You are so special to artists in the studio too (including me)! I totally get where you are coming from and I think it is super cool that you have your art on window drapes! I would love to buy some of those one day.
DeleteHi, Paige!
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with you regarding the distinction between filmed actors and onstage actors. Both have their own unique and powerful auras. I think worth noting is the time in which Benjamin's article was published - 1936. By this point, "moving pictures" had existed for several decades, but by the '30s, film was growing rapidly as a new form of entertainment, career for actors, and a part of our cultural norm. Stage productions have existed for hundreds of years and plays were likely still a form of entertainment that people, particularly older generations of the time, gravitated towards. I'm not sure how old Benjamin was at the time of this article's publication, but I assume if he were on the older side, he might have been more partial to stage plays due to nostalgia. But stage play or movie, I think both possess their own unique auras.
Also, your art absolutely has aura!! I interpreted the idea of an art piece having aura as not only in relation to its existence in time in space, but also in relation to its history: the planning that went into it, the struggles, the successes, the very touch of the artists' hands on their pieces. Just because your work is not in a gallery or hasn't been viewed my thousands of people doesn't mean it has little to no aura. If a person likes your work well enough to want to own the original piece rather than a mere copy, it is because they are enticed by your piece's history - its aura!
Hello Alicia! Thank you for your great comment! You made it a lot easier for me to understand where Benjamin was coming from when he discussed the topic of on stage aura compared to on film. Also, thank you for commenting on my art! I am realizing that it does have an aura because of the planning and successes because of you. So thank you.
Delete