Reproduction of Art

In our last class, we talked about Benjamin’s article and the reproduction of art.  The discussion about this article and then the follow up about expectations has kind of stuck with me all week.

The first part of our discussion, we talked about whether or not “reproducing copies of originals” (Benjamin, 1236) takes away the value of the original. One side of the argument is that replications don’t have the same impact that the originals do, so there are elements missing in the reproductions that were present in the originals. 

http://www.allartclassic.com

The second part of that discussion, and the one I leaned towards during class, was the Benjamin’s theory that “technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself” (1236). I interpreted this to mean that the replications of the original gives the piece exposure, which makes people want to see the original.

After thinking about the original versus the reproductions this week, I keep questioning, which one is better? I no longer feel like I have a clear feeling one way or the other, but am rather indecisive on the idea.

Yes, I still think that reproductions can bring awareness that might not have been there before. I had seen replication of Degas’ dancers in school and online, so when I went to the Museum of Art in New York, I knew I wanted to see the paintings. Being exposed to the work beforehand made me aware of his work, and sparked an interest. For that reason, I believe that reproductions are valuable.

However, after thinking about it, I can see how reproducing a piece can cause it to lose value. If you look at Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, there have been multiple film adaptations, for me, it’s hard to get excited for the story, and it feels a little worn out. I know that the story is great, but whenever a movie of comes on television, I feel myself rolling my eyes a little.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063518/?ref_=nv_sr_2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645131/?ref_=nv_sr_1

My last idea that makes me think that reproductions can take away the value of the original has to do with the idea of hype. In class, Iris mentioned that Stonehenge did not have the appeal that it was hyped up to have.  I am going to England this summer, and this is something that has been on my mind. Do I have such high ideal in my mind from images that I have seen online or on television that the original will not be able to live up to it? Do the reproductions set people up for disappointment when they see the originals, since reproductions can be altered and changed to be improved on?

http://crazy-frankenstein.com/stonehenge-wallpapers.html

I rambled trying to figure out what I thought about this topic. I felt like our class discussion helped the concepts to be clearer to me, but I feel like picking one side or another is not as easy. Both sides are valid. Reproducing art helps it reach an audience that it might not have gotten to before, but reproducing it can also take away the uniqueness and specialness of the piece.