Replication Theory

The second reading comment (http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/modern/The-Work-of-Art-in-the-Age-of-Mechanical-Reproduction.html) :

No matter how you define a piece of art, that definition resonates a certain meaning within you that makes you appreciate (or not) that what you consider as art, be it a urinal placed upside down in a gallery, a large painting, a video game or even an Anime episode. However in our day an age where scientists are cloning goats, any piece of art can be replicated, copied, reproduced and recreated. which leads us to the ultimate question of authenticity ; is this the original piece ? hell, What is an original piece anyway ? what would really be original authentic art anymore ? would quantity kill the value of the single original piece ? would availability kill the art itself ? those are essentially the questions addressed in the second Reading article.

comparing himself to Marx and how he explained capitalism, the author begins from the start on how the reproduction began. through history mechanical reproduction of artwork was present; ancient Greeks making coins, woodcuts in medieval times ,lithographs; reproduction has evolved along with art to satisfy the needs of man (and woman) to bring the artworks to his (and her) fingertips. but the craft of reproduction back then was in itself an art form till it became over used with the invention of the camera and the battle began, the definition of photography as art was the main topic of that age but the author focuses deeply on his own thesis and asks if photography of an art piece as a reproduction ruining the authenticity of a piece. he doesn't completely reach a solution for that but he puts the topic out in the open leaving it up for grabs to whoever wishes to address it.

the author stresses on art being a cult form ever since it started with the ancient cave drawings, it was meant to be underground (to him) so that it can be properly appreciated. Art ( to him) has this certain aura that gives it that appeal that makes it it authentic. And with art reproduced and unleashed to the masses that underground movement is now mainstream and the layman proletariat can have easy access to that coveted from of aesthetic emotional expression and communication. and not only did photography replicate pictures, it did so multiple times making the images move forming what is known today as film another form of art in itself yet it is still a form of reproduction itself.

He goes on to the comparison between the screen and stage actors and how the differences appear between them like the fact that the stage actor reacts with the audience directly whereas the screen actor works with a machine (the camera) and has to make his wraith of a shadow resonate enough so that once it is reprojected his performance would appear alive. also camera angles tend to control the viewers input to that form of performance putting them in a critic's point of view without any physical connection with the actor unlike when the actor is on stage and they have to interact mentally with him/her to be immersed within the performance. this analogy is similar to an artwork and its reproduction, no one is saying one is better than the other, the author himself states that film is more tuned in to reality because it is directly recorded through a machine while stage (the metaphorical painting) is more of an artist's work into trying to replicate reality into art form. the layman contemporary person reacts to the object closer to his reality making the reproductions (film) more easy for him to access.

Reproduction then makes art more accessible to the masses. making ti easy enough to have a simultaneous release of artwork reproductions on several fronts, while a painting can only be at one place at one time. giving reproductions more appeal to the masses just because IT'S THERE.


he ends on a note that through history issues like that have helped art evolve into newer fresher forms to fit that current time, and it will keep evolving. but will the forming of more masses from bringing cults together through replication be useful. will the proletariat prosper. He is concerned about fascism in that case and and says
"Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, whom Fascism, with its Fiihrer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values. "

He says that with technical aspects of reproduction conflict the authentic traditions of art making, that conflict is similar to a political war which would shape society into the next level, will they become the ultimate reproduction artists or will they revert to the old traditions in a scary Amish-like retrogression only time will till, but hey while we sit this war out just keep participating by creating your own artworks to see which would really prevail in today's world and tomorrow's universe.