Theory and Methods Week Four Discussion

      This week, we read ,”The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, by Walter Benjamin. This week's reading, to me, was a lot easier to understand than the previous readings we have done. In the article, Benjamin argues that the mass reproduction of artworks hinder them rather than help them, and he believes that every artwork has its own “aura” that can be killed by the mass reproduction of artworks. Within the article, 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,” (1).  He goes on after this to explain that the time and circumstances surrounding the artwork as it was created determines how it survived and was treated over time. He explains that this also includes how it changed physically, if it was damaged or developed cracks of any kind, and it also includes changes of ownership over the years. He also further explains that analyzing its changing condition over time can only be done on the original, not any of the copies that are made of it. I think this is a very important point of his that he makes, there are a lot of famous artworks that now have the wear of history visibly on them. While it is sad that over time they have become more damaged, I think it also adds to the artwork's character. The Mona Lisa has visible cracks within it, but it has become so recognizable as one of its defining features. I can see arguments on both sides as to whether or not reproductions of artworks harm the original. I think that reproductions help the original artwork by making it more accessible to people who couldn’t otherwise go see the original artwork in person. Reproductions have made the artwork able to travel around the whole globe, whether a physical copy or in a history book or on the internet. This also helps low income families or households because it allows almost anyone of any status to see artworks and connect with them. However, I can also see the argument that it harms the original, and damages its “aura”. The examples that come to mind is how an artist's life and work can become a huge merchandise trend. I received as a gift from a friend, a water bottle of Frida that looked like it was based off of this artwork by Frida.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Frida_Kahlo_%28self_portrait%29.jpg

     However, the image on the artwork was changed to make Frida very hyper feminine, rosy cheeks and big eyes with big eyelashes, her unibrow was no longer a unibrow and her entire face shaped changed. I think that this is extremely damaging, it had completely taken and ruined the “aura” of the original painting, and in my opinion I don’t think it was something Frida would have liked at all. Frida did not conform to gender roles in her lifetime and rejected gender stereotypes, she experimented with her gender identity and expression throughout her lifetime. And for a copy of her artwork to be grossly changed into a version of her that she did not want for herself in her lifetime feels very wrong.

Citations:

(1)

Walter Benjamin, "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,"