The reproduction of a work of art will always be a difficult process, partially because if the art is a very well-known piece, it would be difficult for a entirely different artist to be compared to said original artist. Yet, the reproduction artist also must take into account the authenticity and exactness of the original artist's work because to reproduce the artwork in a slovenly fashion would be to spit in the face of said original artist. This is why those who reproduce the works of another, consider this feat historically fragile. Not only is art in and of itself a fragile concept and task, it is also one of the few ideas of mankind which has lasted since the dawn of man.
As a Humanities minor, I have always had a love for art and its history, particularly the paintings of the Italian artist Caravaggio. Although I was never much of a painter or artist myself, there were still works of art that I simply adored and then there were works of art which I simply could not bear to look at; and yet, I have found a new appreciation for these types of art.
For instance, before I found my love for the Humanities, I would look at a Jackson Pollock painting and wonder to myself "and why is this art?" Back then, it seemed to me that it was simply pallets of paint seemingly tossed upon one another. This was not art. However, as I began to acquire a love for the Humanities, my teacher challenged us to a task: recreate a Jackson Pollock painting and you will receive extra credit. Needless to say no one did well and no one received the extra credit, and it was then that each of us realized why we were studying Jackson Pollock, and why he was not the one studying us.
Benjamin is absolutely right in his idea that the reproduction of art is historically fragile. As I have learned from my own failures, art cannot simply be recreated via the hand of another artist, no matter how much of a genius or an aficionado he or she might be. The original artist and the original work of art quite literally define representation. Whatever Pollock or Caravaggio were feeling within themselves at the times when they created their most famous works of art, can never be represented again by another artist because they cannot feel the same feelings or be in the exact moment.
Benjamin directly 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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of existence." Although it is not a simple task to reveal an original work of art from an almost perfect reproduction, the advancement of technologies has allowed us to see the weathering, the brush strokes, and the changes in physical condition, and therefore has allowed us to appreciate the true work of art all the more.
Another point Benjamin makes is, "the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence." This statement allowed me to reflect on how humans see art now, verses how they saw art during periods of great artistic talent. We hear the stories of a member of the New York Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra playing in the subways while people merely pass by and just a few throw him a few dollars or coins here and there. However, no one understands that this slovenly and seemingly homeless man has people come and see him from all over the world and that these people pay hundreds of dollars to appreciate his music. Sadly Benjamin is right. Our human perception of when we see a homeless man playing in the subway station, changes the perception of our humanity and our existence, and furthermore, our failing for the appreciation of art.
Now this brings me to Favro's The Street Triumphant. As I began to read this essay, nothing truly stuck out to me and I began to wonder how it had to do more with a Rhetorical Theory and Practice class, than a History of the Roman Empire class. However, I will state the one sentence which stuck out for me in this entire essay. Favro writes, "at the same time, the path of the procession exhorted all observers to "look behind" to the future."
At first, I thought "look behind to the future," what could that possibly even mean. All our lives we've been taught either to learn from the past or not dwell on the past, and furthermore, to look forward to and think about our futures. Yet here is Favro, telling us to "look behind to the future." Then, I read Benjamin's essay, and I understood.
While Benjamin talks about the issues of reproduction of works of art, he never mentions the fact that possibly, one day, these people who are creating these reproductions, may have reproductions of their original works of art in the future. Let me break this down. Let's say I wanted to reproduce one of Caravaggio's original paintings. I slave tirelessly day after day trying to achieve the brush strokes of Caravaggio and the dark tones within his paintings. Countless tries later, I give up on my reproduction. I find it physically impossible to reproduce a piece of work from such a talented artist. However, I take this time to focus on myself and realize what I would paint based off of the things I am currently experiencing in my life. I slave tirelessly day after day trying to achieve the brush stokes and the tones of my painting to accurately reflect my inner self. Countless tries later, I have completed my work of art and boy, is it a beauty. Miraculously, someone else thinks so as well and this person pays me a lot of money for my painting and hangs it in an art gallery. Countless numbers of people view and admire my painting and wish for more. As I get older, my original painting is moved into a museum for more to admire. As I get frail and older, I stop painting, and yet people continue to admire my artwork for many years after I leave this Earth. Several decades or even centuries later, a young artist sees my painting and tries to reproduce it. The circle begins again. Reproducers look behind to see their future.
Koral,
ReplyDeleteI think it is really interesting that you decided to incorporate the notion of how reproducers must look behind to see their future. This reminds me of how historians say that you have to look at everything with hindsight; meaning we must understand our past in order to understand our future. This approach applies to various spectrums as we can see, since it is quite apartment within the art community. Apart from art being replicated, and its aura changing, I think that popular art at least experiences movements and changes every few decades, if not every single century.
Moreover, I like the approach you took when trying to compartmentalize the notion of “look behind to the future” from Favro’s article. While perhaps the context it was referring to in her article did not specifically apply to art and the reproduction of it, it is still certainly a concept that can be applied to art. Interestingly enough, when trying to look at the future with hindsight, you brought up the point that Benjamin only criticized those in the present with regards to reproduction. The act of reproduction is a never-ending one; if one person is demonized for doing so, then we all must be. For probably one day, someone will take bits and pieces of our work, whether it is art or not, and someone else will reproduce this with a different context and idea in mind. This whole concept is very relatable to remediation and re-appropriation, as well as remixing something. Regardless of whether it is art, or writing, or any other work, it still has the ability to be reproduced to some extent.
Ultimately, I enjoyed your post and I think you made interesting points from the presented arguments of Favro and Benjamin. In particular I liked that you were really pushing for the fact that those who reproduce work, and remix work, are always looking to their past for the answers of their future.
Best wishes,
Valeria Vargas Caro
Koral, you have some great points that I both agree and disagree with that delve into what art is, but more importantly, what it is not. Whether implicitly or explicitly, you dance around and address these with a very honest and direct yearning, I think, and I appreciate that. The idea of reproducing a work and analyzing the nature of it first would beg the question of purpose: Why are we reproducing a work of art? Do we take a picture of it so we can appreciate it in a different time and place? Is it to study the work to understand the art itself from a purely academic standpoint? The there’s Benjamin’s statement about what art is relative to the time and place it’s in, which I think has to be true in a very specific sense, whether we like it or not. Yes, of course the effect of the art is dependent upon the audience, but also is first and foremost from and of the artist who authorizes it as such. It’s an interesting point made about the ma form the New York Philharmonic that plays on the subway, although I don’t think it’s as simple as you make it out to be, or that perhaps you are simply misattributing the idea towards this example. (But perhaps he used this example himself and I’m completely wrong) So our perception is something that is like the vehicle that allows us to understand things that exist absolutely, namely, the music or the art, but I don’t see how the perception of the supposedly homeless man changes our perception of humanity and existence. Our perception of one thing changes our perception of humanity? And then this is what makes us responsible for failing to appreciate art. What I think is that people are simply not educated or able (out of their ability or lack thereof to understand as a result of various factors overtime) to understand what a specific piece of art is, what it is not, and whether or not it is art. The thing is this also presupposes a definition on what art is, which has to be agreed upon before anyone can talk about whether something is a great piece of art. One man can say that Caravaggio was a great artist because of A, while one man says he was bad because of B yet the conversation is merely two people having two one ended conversations because they do not have an understanding or agreement on what art is. Again, at the end, when mentioning that the circle begins when someone comes along to reproduce a piece of art, the first question is “for what purpose”? Also, he may simply want to imitate or draw from particular elements of the artist’s style, in order to do something new from something that already exists.
ReplyDeleteHey Koral,
ReplyDeleteWe were actually just talking about something like this in my (our) Irish Lit class today. You brought up Benjamin's argument that "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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of existence." I think this is absolutely true, in art and with any kind of text, really. We talked about some how poems and stories are considered classics--that is, they stand the test of time and are just as meaningful now as they were decades, and sometimes even centuries ago. However, even though those classic texts can be meaningful in their application to our time, knowing the context and history behind those texts can unlock many layers of meaning that perhaps weren't apparent before. Benjamin was, I think, absolutely right in claiming that the unique existence of a work of art determines the history it is subject to, and that history, that context, creates meaning. That meaning is usually what inspires a person to try to reproduce it in the first place.
I also think the conclusion you arrived at regarding what Benjamin meant by "looking behind to the future" is really intriguing. Your example of that self-perpetuating cycle of art and reproduction makes a lot of sense. I also think it could apply to remix and remediation culture, as Valeria mentioned, and rhetorical velocity could play a part here too. If artists and authors look back to see how texts similar to theirs were re-appropriated, sampled, and used or reproduced, then they can then look ahead to see the future of their own text and plan or create accordingly.
-Jessica Gonzalez
Koral,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I liked that you started off this post by talking about humanities and your love for art and transitioning those points into your argument. It definitely drew me in. The point about Jackson Pollock was interesting because my friend and I just had a conversation the other day about his work and how it really is difficult to paint like Pollock and how seeing his work in person makes a difference as well.
Second, as I read your post, I seemed to be connecting what I read, especially about how reproductions of art lack a place in time and space, to the concept of aura. This seems to be what Benjamin is explaining, even if he doesn't explicitly state it. I enjoyed the connection you made between aura and "Street Triumphant". I myself was a bit confused at first as to how that text was truly related to rhetorical theory, but I think you keyed in to an important point and ran with it. The quote "looking behind to see the future" stuck out to me as well, but I hadn't actually tried to apply it. I liked how you defined it in terms of art. Architecture and even rhetoric are art forms so what would be more appropriate a comparison? It reminds me of the case study we ready about the college student with her image appropriated without her permission. The authors suggest that she, and others like her, should look into the future to determine how a work of art or a piece of writing or an image could be appropriated. But I think instead of looking to the future, they should take Favro's tip and look into the past. Only then will artists and creators be able to see the possibilities for the reappropriation of their art.
Jordan Berns