2 questions

The Work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction.

1. Reproduction: it is made by people who want to fill selfishness. They wanted to have quality of the art in low prices. However, the reproduction has positive and negative parts such as people could earn education or the lost of aura of real one, the value of the work, are missing. The reproduction are deep into our lives if it is can not be reject there could be many ways to make this to more positive. What people need to do? Moreover, what is aura? What is value of the work? In the book, the author mentions “the accent is on the value”, “the exhibition value of the work.” What is different?

2. There are some of step of reproduction such as copying the work, by the photo, by computer, movie, and advertising. Furthermore, what is gab between audience and artist? Is that really impact the audience because there are mechanical system between art work and audience? Moreover, is mechanical reproduction not art?

===============================================================

The cognitive style of power point: pitching out corrupts within

1. Even the Power Point lost their meaning; there are many great power points that are use for the business. It could be unmeaning or no useful but there are plenty ways to make this power point work better.

2. The Edward R. Tufte’s idea of the good power point might works good for most people. However, I think it is more personal thing. I mean it could be more weight on personal opinion. I greed with simplify of the design of presentation and text. They are good ideas but sometime people need more word or more expiation. I think people need develops their own way to make good presentation.

Essay Questions, etc.

I realize that I'm posting this less than an hour before class starts, so the chances of someone seeing this are slim, but I'd like to respond to Bill's post... I agree that we are getting back into the t echnical aspects of art with the advent of film. I feel like any time there is a new medium, it's a good idea to explore the technical aspects of the medium (and try to "hide our hands"), and really understand the way that medium works, before exploring the conceptual possibilities of that medium (uhh, sorry if that didn't make any sense...).

Okay, now here are my questions:

1. What is the value of a painting or a drawing in today's society, where we have photography and video and digital art? Do paintings still have a function? I think the essay may have explained this, but I didn't understand.

2. Benjamin talked about the function of art changing in today's society. I just want to clarify... I thought that Benjamin felt that before photography, a piece of art was important because it was a piece of art. Because art was not easily accessible, a painting was precious... sort-of in thte same way that a diamond is precious. And now, after photography, art isn't so precious... more people can view art, so art for the sake of art doesn't really exist any more. So, the purpose of art is... different. I'm not sure what Benjamin said, but I think it's to communicate an idea.
Is this right? Or, am I just putting words into Benjamin's mouth?

Questions about Benjamin reading...

1. In the second section, Benjamin states that, "The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity." This statement caught my attention because it relates to some of the questions brought up by our Manovich reading. It seems a common element in discussing reproduced art is the concept of the original. In this day and age, however, most of our mass produced digital art really has no true original. According to Benjamin's statement, doesn't that fact jeopardize the art's authenticity?

2. Right from the very beginning of this reading, Benjamin jumps into a whole batch of political ideas dealing with Marx, and fascism. I understand how he incorporates capitalism into his points, but I'm having trouble finding relevance in his other political mentionings. I'm not personally very familiar with politics, fascism especially, so I'm sure that doesn't help much, but Benjamin's whole preface just seems to be a jumble of political analysis. I think he's talking about present day modes of production, and their effects on art, but that small point seems to be lost in his philosophical wordiness.

kim's questions #2

1. what is the relationship between the aura, the audience, the authenticity, and tradition. Does the aura diminish when the relationship of the audience and the art diminishes or is it when the audience becomes "absent-minded".

2. The functionality of art was questioned in this paper, the function of l'art pour l'art, the "negative theology", is it the destruction of the "aura"?

questions: ...Mechanical Reproduction

woah! This reading is intense. I feel very confused...

Is the author in favor of film or not? Most of the time I think he is, and then other times I can't tell.

I don't understand what he means when he talks about "aura" in part IX
"...the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays"

Is he saying that film is an art that poeple don't fully understand? part XV
"The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one."