Is art that is reproduced still the same art? Walter Benjamin's essay "'The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility" aims to discuss this and come to a conclusion. "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," he begins section II. Reproduced art is not the same because it loses the uniqueness of its value and the effort put in to the original. In the same way, this mass-produced calendar is merely a representation of a representation of nature. Quite literally, this is similar to Don McKay's idea of First Order and Second Order appropriation. First the object (Canadian Wilderness landscapes) are used as a tool to for personal benefit (creating art to make money). Then, it is taken further through using the art to represent a common Canadian culture. This is what McKay alludes to in "Materiél". The calendar takes it a step forward by attempting to introduce this art and idea into the general publics' homes.
Benjamin's essay is quite dense, and unfortunately, time got away from me and I was not able to analyze the text as thoroughly as I would have liked. Rather, I found a valuable source in an analysis by Eric Larsen that breaks down Benjamin's main points. One of the big revelations in Benjamin's work is the idea of the aura and how it plays into art. The aura is imbedded in the original work, which throughout history served as an authoritative symbol of power. But, through reproduction, the aura is lost, and therefore so is the power. Therefore, are these paintings still powerful if they are reproduced time and time again with ease? I don't think so. The awe and inspiration that one may feel when looking at paintings is lost as they become more accessible. The calendar, in a way, bastardizes wilderness by taking the Group of Seven's reproductions of it and commoditizing it further.
No comments:
Post a Comment