ARCHIVE - Creating a Conceptual Framework for Images - Week 6

ARCHIVE - copies

wolale13 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:47:09 -0700

As the reading discussed the mass productions of work created by photographers and moneymakers, I started thinking on how the value of the object decreases and increases. In the art business, the original piece has a higher value then the copy, which makes sense because in order to have made the copies you needed one original. But from a consumers point of view, why buy the original? Is there something wrong with the copy? From what I understand it’s exactly the same accept its date of conception and the different use of materials to create it. So why is it so important for some buyers to buy the original piece when the copy is just as good and a whole lot cheaper. I have a few guess why but they all straddle around the ideas of egos, bragging rights, and financial status. The reason the art piece was made in tons of copies because it was a wonderful piece to be enjoyed by millions, so why have the first, why not the 3 or 46 or 1109th copy. The only logical financial reason for buying the original piece to me is to sell it for more then I bought it, but the whole reason why I should have bought it is because I loved the piece and planned on keeping it. So who the hell cares if you got the " original", at least you have a copy and spent a whole lot less.

ARCHIVE - looking at photographs handout

sanshe07 — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:45:07 -0800

I felt like this was really boring and full of statements that everyone can agree with blah!

this could have been summed up something like this (although i got bored reading this i may have missed something)

Photographes explain what is going on with out having to read anything. (this is probably bad). Photographes as art often need a person to read about what is going on. sure you can evaluate on technique and skill, but thats only if you know about that kind of stuff. considering the majorty of the population does not go to galleries when they see the image they will get even less of the story than the gallery goer. when we view photographs we never get the whole story because we can only see what is in the frame what the artist has choosen to tell us. a photograph is only one side of a story that can easly be misconstured.

ARCHIVE - work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction

mcajul15 — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:53:29 -0800

I found some of the ideas in Benjamin's essay to be quite interesting. When discussing how when photography was first invented, the public questioned its value as art, Benjamin makes the point that perhaps it changed the nature of art altogether. This causes me to further consider the question that we all keep coming back to: what is Art? (Puddle anyone?) This is sort of a goofy example, but ASCII just popped into my head; people use letters and characters on the computer (something that most people would never consider as an artistic medium) and put them together to create drawings and images, almost like a mosaic of symbols. As artists, it's our job to constantly consider new and innovative ways to make art, using materials and tools (even if they are goofy) that challenge artistic traditions. Another interesting point the article made was the difference between cult and exhibition value. Benjamin says that early cave paintings and the like, although originally created to have cult/religious/spiritual value, have only recently become recognized as art. This raises an interesting question for me. Since we keep arguing that what makes something Art is the creator's inetion, this case makes me wonder: are these cave paintings and such truly art, since they were not created with the intention of being art? Who gets to decide what is and isn't art? And finally, I'd like to comment on "the same ancient lament that the masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration," and Benjamin's observation that film seems to paradoxically marry distraction to concentration since "the public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one." I question whether this is really true, because it seems to me like the viewer of a film ultimately chooses, on an individual basis, to take either an active or passive position in the viewing of the film. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel pretty damn distracted a lot of the time...

ARCHIVE - Response for Week Six

mccmad16 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:47:37 -0800

Mechanically reproduced art, has been around for some time. Coins for example, are tiny works of underrated art that everyone owns. No matter how many times one reproduces a Monet, or the Mona Lisa, the original is still valued much more. The concept though of mechanical reproduction and art opens some questions. If a song is recorded onto a CD and mass-produced is that song now considered a copy of an original work? Then would live performance be the only way to see an artist perform his or her song without it being mechanically reproduced, because although the same lyrics are being sung, there would be subtle differences. In terms of photography it is stated, “Since the eye perceives moreswiftly than the hand can draw, the process of pictorial reproduction was accelerated so enormously that it could keep pace with speech. A film operator shooting a scene in the studio captures the images at the speed of an actor's speech. Just as lithography virtually implied the illustrated newspaper, so did photography foreshadow the sound film” The art of photography, and then film helped to greatly increase the mechanical reproduction movement.

ARCHIVE - Week 6 Yo.

dankam12 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:46:35 -0800

Benjamin's description of the history of art being duplicated of sorts reminds me much of today. With everything being so easy to remake, (burning CD's, DVD;s, recording shows, posters of any sort of art) What happens when we get to a point where art to where its made to be repeated? When I was reading David's response, he mentioned what is wrong with duplicating art? The original art piece is always known, even if it is repeated. The Mona Lisa can be duplicated, but we always remember the original, no matter now many times we may remake it. We will always compare it to the original art form, therefore, the actual art will never be lost.

ARCHIVE - Week 6

hamtar16 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:39:04 -0800

Week 6
The Work of Art

Walter Benjamin’s essay brings many interesting points to the table. One that I thought was interesting was that film and photography have both artistic and scientific abilities which gives more people a chance to appreciate it compared to something like painting. By being able to analyze film for a scientific purpose shows how close to reality film is. The ability to distort film or what is on the film because it is so close to reality gives it another dimension. An example may be sci-fi films.

Do people feel closer to works of art that are film because of its closeness to reality?

ARCHIVE - Week six response

duvala03 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:02:43 -0800

I think the reproduction of art is great if you need to sell alot of art to survive. Personally i would rather create an epic series of works and have only a couple copies of each piece. You would have several pieces that come from the same idea or inspiration but they would all be different. The reproduction of art can also screw an artist over if someone decides to reproduce your piece and then call it his own. I have a habbit of assuming the worst in people i don't know when it come to my work and my personal belongings. If i leave it out, it will be stolen. I hate to say that but it's true. people steal ofter artists work all the time.

ARCHIVE - Mass Production

chijes12 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:10:51 -0800

While reading this manifesto, I couldnt help but think of my prior work in a medium quite suitable for this topic: printmaking. The point of printmaking is to recreate the same piece of art from the same medium to eventually have a series of identical prints from the same artist. Many hidden aspects come into play when saying the word identical or original for that matter. When a printmaker creates a piece, often the printmaker creates something that can withstand a number of inkings and presses but many times the artists has an assitant that actually runs the press and creates the prints. These many prints then are part of a series. So where does the complication set in? Do the prints hold any value to the owner because they were printed by an assistant? Do they hold any value because it is a print of the original work by the artist? These questions still boggle my mind after many years.

ARCHIVE - Roan on wk 6 reading

edwroa20 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:46:17 -0800

"Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by film is incomporably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers,.......an aspect of reality which is free from all equipment." -p.8

This idea that film is capable of representing reality is, for starters, false. I believe this is why the wave of avant-gardists came along; to show the limitation as well as the strengths of film. They showed us the camera is capable of manipulating what it sees.

Does a paint brush constitute equipment but a camera not. A camera does not capture the 'universal reality'; it conveys a highly subjective and unique (as we see with the photos of photographers with a 'distinctive eye') temporary juxtaposition of objects- mise-en-scene. The way in which these objects are assembled together and interpreted cannot be recreated without incorporating the workings of the mind. Conversely, painting can, when done well, succeed in portraying the workings of the painters mind far more accurately than a camera can that of the photographers mind. This is why filmmakers such as Dziga Vertov [A Man with a Movie Camera], Chris Marker [Sans Soleil- about a camera man], Jean-Luc Godard [History of Cinema] etc.. incorporate the medium of film and the camera's lens between reality and capturer as a factor in their films. The camera must be acknowledged before we can go on to consider what is shown to us from it. The lens is an added factor in the equation of reality-to-viewer. Whereas a painter has nothing in the way of his reality and his conveyance it (the canvas) except his/her own hands.

ARCHIVE - Week 6 - Reproduction of art

taycan04 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:48:25 -0800

"the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced. These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary crisis and renewal of mankind. Both processes are intimately connected with the contemporary mass movements."

To me, reproduction has an advantage in its potency. It can reach a larger group of people, breaking the sterotype of rich art collectors, even though it may reduce the tradition of the artwork itself. Reproduced art's magic lies in it's accessibility. You don't necessarily have to be rich or an art historian to enjoy it. Andy Warhol is a good example. His silkcreen's were made to be mass produced. They reached a larger audience and had an enormous influence on art. That's exactly what Warhol was trying to do: commercialize his work and make it accessible to everyone.