Reading response 1

In the reading ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility’, some interesting arguments the author gives are about the comparison between ancient technology of artwork (The Greeks’, for example) and today’s technologically reproducible art, like film. And also he has some unique comment about film production. He seems trying to argue that film is more specialized, fragmented, made collectively, less individual spirit, and the reproducibility of these work of art has some effects on the aura of artwork.

The way how the audience accept films is as important as how the film is reproduced. That should be one of the reasons why ‘politicization’ of art will appear in his opinion. The connection between the technological reproducibility and politicization of art seems still not clear for me. Is it because the reproducibility affects the aura of art, so there is more space/opportunity, or easier in film for raising political ideas? But in my opinion, the changing scenes of a film will not ‘shock’ me since I will not watch a film in the same way as I watch a painting. The thinking process of watching a film will continue together with playing at the same time, instead of starting after people receive a single scene, because film does not have to put all information in one picture. And for the same reason, maybe the fragment of film does not relate to the loss of aura as much as we thought, since the coherence of each scene will also affect its aura.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.