6::Alexandra Schultz::Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit

Thoughts on the article:

The sections on art's origins in cult/ritual as an object of worship, and how reproducing it frees it from these origins got me thinking about how mechanical reproduction isn't a new phenomenon, and can in fact coexist with a religious purpose.  The Ancient Greeks made tons of cheap little clay reproductions of statues of gods and deities for people to carry around or keep in their houses, and in this case, the statues didn't lose their value as religious/cult icons.

My favorite part of the article, although I didn't necessarily agree with any of it, was section 11, where he continues to discuss film vs. other forms of art.  I found it a little offputting how he entertains a romantic notion of art sans mechanical involvement as more human or whole than art created with the aid of mechanical tools, which introduce temporal/spatial divides in the process of creation.  I would draw a distinction between the "finished product" and the "process of creating the product," two views of a piece of art that he did not distinguish.  He discusses how film presents such a convincing imitation of reality, when in fact the process of creating a film is as far from reality as possible (lighting, multiple takes of every scene, changing the camera angle, crew members standing by, etc).  However, I would mention that in the process of creating the play, the author rewrote it several times and the actors rehearsed scenes over and over -- even a few lines at a time, over a few weeks to a few months, and possibly in different practice spaces.  So are these really so different?  Even during the live performance of a play, you have a stage crew backstage, lighting, set changes, and so on to maintain the illusion of reality.  Is there such a sharp difference between mechanically reproducing a movie to be screened multiple times and a play that is performed every night for months?

P.S. Is it just me, or did anyone feel like Ian showing us that article was a dare?  I debated bringing in a photo of a piece of art, slapping it down on the table, and announcing "That's my mechanical translation, imitation, emulation. Yeah, what are you gonna do about it?"

Also, I was just talking about the Treachery of Images ("Ceci n'est pas une pipe") with someone, and it made me think about how none of us actually copied a piece of art (unless you were looking at the original).  We all copied mechanical reproductions of pieces of art. I hadn't really thought about that until now. WEIRD.