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?
Monday, October 1, 2007
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.
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.
emily's questions-walter benjamin
this reading was tough. i think i understood the part about film the most. i kind of want just a general explanation, but here are my 2 specific questions-
"the result was that one could expect it not only to exploit the proletariat with increasing intensity, but ultimately to create conditions which would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself." what? how?
he compares art that is in a fixed place to art that can be moved to different locations. is it more important for the art to be viewed in its original location, or for the art to be accessible to lots of people?
"the result was that one could expect it not only to exploit the proletariat with increasing intensity, but ultimately to create conditions which would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself." what? how?
he compares art that is in a fixed place to art that can be moved to different locations. is it more important for the art to be viewed in its original location, or for the art to be accessible to lots of people?
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"?
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"?
walter benjamin questions
my first question is from section 8. benjamin is giving an example of how the audience identifies with the actor through what the camera portrays. in this paragraph is he trying to show an example of exhibition value which he mentioned earlier, but i felt he never really explained?
my second question is from the epilogue. i understood the whole reading pretty well, but the epilogue really confused me. i don't understand how he relates facism to reproduction and the other things in the reading. so i guess my question is, how does fascism relate to the reading?
my second question is from the epilogue. i understood the whole reading pretty well, but the epilogue really confused me. i don't understand how he relates facism to reproduction and the other things in the reading. so i guess my question is, how does fascism relate to the reading?
Two Questions 10/ 01/ 07
1.)With the advent of computer animation in film are we finally giving back the technical and hands on aspects of art back to the artist and at the same time losing the need for the actor?
2.) If so would it be appropriate to disregard this as Duhamel regards it as being "a pastime for helots"?
2.) If so would it be appropriate to disregard this as Duhamel regards it as being "a pastime for helots"?
charde post
1. does the author feel that the actor takes away the value or artistry of films?
2. because an audeince are given what to see instead of devoloping there own observation, does it lack authenticity, have the movie-makers removed art out films, and does that really matter any more in today society?
2. because an audeince are given what to see instead of devoloping there own observation, does it lack authenticity, have the movie-makers removed art out films, and does that really matter any more in today society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)