Our art and ourselves change as society change. Today people can make artwork like how our economy or the tsunamis in Asia, and even the recent revolutions in Egypt or Iran affect us. The people making are making images for the next generations to understand. Just like in Halley's article where he talks about WWII and how artists based their artwork on that environment and nature. We are still doing that today. Just like art, there are consumer fads too.
<rant> Currently, "all natural" is a huge one. We want the best. We want to live longer and be healthier. So, if we consume our "low fat" items, with VERY high sugar content to the make low fat product taste better- that makes it all the better, right? Low fat, higher sugar? All natural isn't defined by the FDA. Some companies just put "all natural" on their product because they know people will buy it. </rant>
I don't think things in art can disappear forever, even if our society changes. Artists are always going to reference old things, while people are still trying to bring back the 80's.
"Since the eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw." I found this statement interesting. Benjamin discussed reproduction and photography a lot. I think the hand can make beautiful movements and marks with a pencil...but in terms of documentation and reproduction the lens wins this one. "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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in" When I look at a painting... I look for time, blood, sweat, and tears. The layers in a piece of artwork get me. Each one representing time. I feel like a detective. In a way, we lose this in a reproduction. When I look at Twombly in a book, I'm missing the scale, the texture, that feeling you get when you stand next to a ...twelve foot painting. I look at the 2 in x 2 in reproduction like "oh.......that's cool....next page” compared to the sitting in front of a Twombly and being devoured by it.
“I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images. want to think. -Duhamel"
Is it equally hard to stand in front of a painting that is replacing your thoughts? What if the painting is so literal, say a painting of the BP oil spill with some sad seagulls flying in a diagonal across the painting. It's a pretty literal illustration. Could you make room to say "this is really a painting about birds covered in chocolate...." or.... stop and think for an hour...about.."yes..quite..this is an indeed odd depiction of our economy and how the inner system of government and education in our nation works". Is this just like a film. A film is constantly pushing you through to the end. I find myself thinking about it, but then losing track of my thoughts because of the speed of the movie...."thoughts always being replaced". I find myself doing this when I browse online. I read so many short articles, but at the end of the day, what did I actually retain?
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, by Walter Benjamin Interested/thoughts
*For the first time in the process of pictorial reproduction, photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions, which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens. Since the eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw, the process of pictorial reproduction was accelerated so enormously that it could keep pace with speech.
*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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership.
*. Namely, the desire of contemporary masses to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction
*Duhamel, who detests the film and knows nothing of its significance, though something of its structure, notes this circumstance as follows: “I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.want to think.
*The film makes the cult value recede into the background not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but also by the fact that at the movies this position requires no attention. The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one.
Nature and Culture, by Peter Halley
Interested/thoughts
We are seizing the opportunity to stimulate. Powers assigned to nature, the power of thought, repeated in the computer. The heart being the most the most natural. Synthetic vs. Natural. SIMULACRUM- imitation, or a poor stimulation/representation.
I don't think things in art can disappear forever, even if our society changes. Artists are always going to reference old things, while people are still trying to bring back the 80's.
"Since the eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw." I found this statement interesting. Benjamin discussed reproduction and photography a lot. I think the hand can make beautiful movements and marks with a pencil...but in terms of documentation and reproduction the lens wins this one. "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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in" When I look at a painting... I look for time, blood, sweat, and tears. The layers in a piece of artwork get me. Each one representing time. I feel like a detective. In a way, we lose this in a reproduction. When I look at Twombly in a book, I'm missing the scale, the texture, that feeling you get when you stand next to a ...twelve foot painting. I look at the 2 in x 2 in reproduction like "oh.......that's cool....next page” compared to the sitting in front of a Twombly and being devoured by it.
“I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images. want to think. -Duhamel"
Is it equally hard to stand in front of a painting that is replacing your thoughts? What if the painting is so literal, say a painting of the BP oil spill with some sad seagulls flying in a diagonal across the painting. It's a pretty literal illustration. Could you make room to say "this is really a painting about birds covered in chocolate...." or.... stop and think for an hour...about.."yes..quite..this is an indeed odd depiction of our economy and how the inner system of government and education in our nation works". Is this just like a film. A film is constantly pushing you through to the end. I find myself thinking about it, but then losing track of my thoughts because of the speed of the movie...."thoughts always being replaced". I find myself doing this when I browse online. I read so many short articles, but at the end of the day, what did I actually retain?
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, by Walter Benjamin Interested/thoughts
*For the first time in the process of pictorial reproduction, photography freed the hand of the most important artistic functions, which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens. Since the eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw, the process of pictorial reproduction was accelerated so enormously that it could keep pace with speech.
*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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership.
*. Namely, the desire of contemporary masses to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction
*Duhamel, who detests the film and knows nothing of its significance, though something of its structure, notes this circumstance as follows: “I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.want to think.
*The film makes the cult value recede into the background not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but also by the fact that at the movies this position requires no attention. The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one.
Nature and Culture, by Peter Halley
Interested/thoughts
We are seizing the opportunity to stimulate. Powers assigned to nature, the power of thought, repeated in the computer. The heart being the most the most natural. Synthetic vs. Natural. SIMULACRUM- imitation, or a poor stimulation/representation.
No comments:
Post a Comment