"It is no accident that the portrait was the focal point of early photography. The cult of remembrance of loved ones, absent or dead, offers a last refuge for the cult value of the picture. For the last time the aura emanates from the early photographs in the fleeting expression of a human face. This is what constitutes their melancholy, incomparable beauty."
This is the first time that I have personally acknowledged the evolved human perception of art, and how mechanical reproduction reshaped the naked eye. The "aura" of a piece of art is an implication of its authenticity, but more importantly, the historical context of a piece is in the authenticity of itself. "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." From what I understand, the Object that that piece of art stands for, significantly, loses authority as its value is affected by reproduction. However, the use of reproducing a work of art can become a work of art for reproduction, as Benjamin gives an example of a photograph negative, and how the authenticity of the first print won't ever make sense, because of its lack of existence. In this manner, he defines this use as politics. Now comes a strong difference between a use value in regards to ritual, and the use value of the exhibition of work. In the beginning, an artistic production was valued toward something, representing a ceremonial event or object (which he exemplified man in the stone ages), and now is viewed as a piece of art that should remain hidden, as it is now recognized as a work of art. As he explains the shifting ideologies of art, he moves into use of photography and film. The quote that I used to initiate the post does not only stand for the depreciation of a work of art, it represents a transitional stage of utilizing a "cult of remembrance" as the predecessor to photography, and then film. Photography and film's exhibition value starts to become superior. As time persists, qualitative production is succumbed by quantitative, as meanings and traditional values are dispersed. Performances through film does not provide the audience to a work, but a work to an audience, permitting them to take role as a critic without any personal repercussions by not knowing the actor, being disconnected in a sense. In order for the actor to exhibit the aura of a character, he loses himself as a person to perform a certain role he is chosen for. In regards to the theatre and mechanical reproduction, the actors image (compared to a reflection in the mirror), has become separated and transportable to the public. "Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art."
What I enjoyed most was how Rudolf Arnheim viewed the treatment of actors, as stage props to fill certain characteristics, which is still strongly noticeable in the use of film today. For example, Michael Cera has always been seen playing the role of a geeky and awkward teenager, but good natured. Especially Johnny Depp and how he is consistently casted as an eccentric hero with a Burtonesque taste, and usually dependent on some sort of drug use.
Further, I enjoyed the reading, and exciting for class discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment