Response - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

        The first thing I want to mention is that this reading is packed with a lot and was pretty difficult for me to interpret, so if I’ve entirely misread something, I want to apologize in advance. 

The author explores the replication of art and, by extension, a large portion of digitized media. He also discusses how that affects the perception of an art form or artwork, particularly on the public level. He touches upon many viewpoints, but the general idea is that you lose the original’s uniqueness and “authority” when you replicate it. I’m unsure where this viewpoint originates, but it seems to be intuitive. Naturally, when one duplicates something, the duplication is seen as inferior or artificial, regardless of medium or added content. I think that the distinction is more sentimental than anything, but I do sympathize a bit. As stated in the text, there are things that an original piece has that a recreation or alternative depiction may not—an original work undergoes things such as the natural aging process and particular artist quirks that aren’t always easy to portray otherwise. 

The author brings up another point, however. He rejects the idea that replicating is a lesser depiction of artwork and instead portrays it as an art form of its own. I find this especially compelling in the case of photography, film, and printmaking. I was initially surprised that some consider these mediums replications because I’m modernly used to viewing them as unique art forms. It’s hard to explain in detail, but the author describes it as taking art fragments and putting them together in a new and unique way. I’m not sure if I follow that logic altogether. Still, I do subscribe to the belief, for example, that a physical copy and a photographed copy of an art piece are individually and uniquely special. 

For example, when you take a picture of a sculpture, you control the specific way your audience perceives it. The author touches on this point in the case of lighting in filmmaking, which also applies to photography. Look no further than a museum’s photography exhibition. I recently visited an archaeology museum in Ann Arbor, and they had set up a tribute to the man who photographed all of the artifacts and ancient sculptures. The museum displayed the actual artifacts next to his photos, and they were scarcely the same thing. The photographer alters stuff like the angle of the object and the lighting. With editing, the colors even become more vibrant. It’s uniquely beautiful. I got the idea that the author was implying that replication is superior. I’m not inclined to agree with that as I think there are benefits and downsides to both. In my opinion, each is a matter of personal preference, and neither is objectively better. In most cases, replication is an entirely different medium from an original.  

I chose to bring my thoughts to this part of the article because it’s the only part I could wrap my head around entirely. When discussing films, human thought, and how everything I’ve already mentioned relates to politics, I think a class discussion would be a good idea if we have time. The first half of the text was easy enough to absorb, but it’s so hard to digest everything else wholly; at least it was for me.