I don’t really agree with the philosophy behind Walter Benjamin’s article. Benjamin is horrified at the effect that the evolution of technology has on the “aura” of art. While he is very right in noting the ways that modernity has affected the production, dispersal and appreciation of art, I don’t think that these transformations necessarily are bad, or that they need disintegrate the value of art. Mass produced art, such as photographs and films, are certainly a change from the ritualistic tradition of toiling for months over marble statues, but in my mind the accessibility and freshness of these new media present their own contributions to the art world and provide interesting subjects of study as well. I feel that Benjamin almost conveys a sense of elitism of old, traditional art forms over the new (that he displayed when dissing Dadaism, for example). I don’t agree with his logic that art used to be better when it was held at a distance and less accessible, and that “to pry an object from its shell” is to “destroy its aura.” Granted, originals were more special back in the day before the age of mechanical reproduction, but I’m not sure why he looks so negatively upon art and artistic expression becoming closer to the masses. I think that the new, liberated twists that younger generations bring to traditional concepts have their own value.
For my imitation project I decided to work with this illustration by Rafal Olbinski that appeared in the New York Times. I was drawn to it because I wanted to use this project as an opportunity to practice drawing things that have been hard for me to draw: namely, hands. I’m hoping that paying such close attention to so many hands will help me become more familiar with the curves and forms of fingers and joints.
No comments:
Post a Comment