Imagine being alive during ancient times and seeing a larger-than-life sculpture carved out of marble or an expansive painting on the ceiling inside a church depicting a religious story. Seeing these works of art in person evokes emotion, you may not know exactly how it was made but you know that it took skilled artisans and you appreciate the piece. Fast forward to today you can purchase art almost anywhere but how much of it can we really consider art when it was created just for mass production.
Chiesa Nuova located in Rome, Italy
I partially agree with Walter Benjamin when he says “One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced” (Benjamin, 2004 p. 99). There are a few ways to break this apart, but I will focus on the plurality aspect and the process of creating the art.
When a piece of art is created and shared with a viewer it is an experience to view the art in that moment as the artist intended. If you are viewing art in a gallery and the entire collection is curated then it will evoke a certain emotion or feeling while you are viewing the collection. Within a gallery setting the artist can help curate the viewers' experience and present their art in a way that aligns with their vision. If we take the art piece, make copies, and stick them on a shelf at a department store the impact on the art will not be the same. That piece of art can still make people feel things but most likely it will not be to the same magnitude that would have been experienced in a gallery setting.
Campbells Soup Cans by Andy Warhol
For most art, each artist has a process for getting into a mindset to create their art. For some artists, it may be secluding themselves in a quiet room, for others, it might be playing their favorite record on their vintage record player. Either way, the artist has a routine that they do before creating their art to get in the mindset needed to create their art. When art is replicated and mass-produced the piece of art may be a physical replica of the art but it is not actually touched or entwined with the artist at all. Art is supposed to be an experience and drum up emotion for a viewer but when the artist is taken out of the process the art itself can lose its original impact.
Replicated art can still have an impact on a viewer but not to the scale or necessary in the way the original artist intended. Does a reproduction of a work of art stand a chance at evoking the same emotions and having the same presence as an original piece?
Amanda, I enjoyed your post! I'm not an artist, but I definitely have enjoyed looking at it! I have been to some of the most amazing museums and spent dozens of hours looking at world famous art pieces, and you're right, the originals DO have an aura about them. But I remember at one of the museums in London (either the V&A or British Museum or Tate Gallery... I can't remember, sorry!) there was an incredible section on plaster casts of amazing statues. These were not the "original" but they were made directly from casts of the originals, such as David, Mayan megaliths, and other wonders from around the ancient and modern world. It may seem a little strange, but I still got a sense of awe from the "dupes" of these amazing artworks. I think, for me, the reason they still resonated with me was because I was able to get a first-person sense of scale to the statues.
ReplyDeleteYour post also made me think about live music, actually. It's fun to see your favorite band play, but in general, we almost exclusively listen to recordings of the music we like. The recordings are cheap or even free to enjoy compared to the "real thing" even though live performances have little differences and hiccups sometimes. It is really interesting to think about!
As an art collector and museum/gallery geek, I can say this post stood out to me for the current module, and I definitely have some thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI think it honestly depends on the artist. Some artists most likely had the intention of having one iteration of their creation, and they most likely pictured a specific application for that work. The example that comes to mind for me would be artists who painted within churches, Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel being a biggie.
For some artists, Warhol being a perfect example, I believe that creating pop art was part of their mission. Some, one would argue many, artists create multiple series of one work through artists proofs, lithographs, etc. I actually had a signed artist proof from Warhol at one point in my life. It wasn't the original, but he personally signed off on the copy. To me, that says it was part of his mission to get it in the hands and on the walls of more people in society.
Would a person looking at the Warhol I had on my wall receive the same emotions looking at it on my wall as compared to looking at it in the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh? Probably not. But not everyone can afford to go to the Pittsburgh. And most cannot afford an original or even a signed lithograph. I guess the point I am making is that some artists personally condone or condoned while they were alive the reproduction of their works in order to (a) make more money, and (b) increase access and enjoyment of their work, even if it wasn't in the optimal presentation and/or setting.