Chan Sum Kie Dorcas u3579263
The new and innovative are what most captivated us, and what most captivates us generates the greatest reaction. Technology has pushed reproducibility to its most extreme, it seems what Benjamin has observed in 1935 has been normalising, or even worsening over the past 90 something years.
On the surface, art does seem to be losing its aura, its technicality to convenience. Some of the most popular artists on social media pages mostly create 2-dimensional pieces such as illustrations, paintings, photographs. The still, easily portable are what most people choose as a medium nowadays. We no longer witness the handmade precision at the level of ancient sculptors, what’s most recommended are drawings of pretty girls with different objects around them. It seems like not only the medium, but also the foci of the pieces has become more easily reproduced and digestible so that the masses can all pay and praise.
But does that mean we are devolving? Take a visit to the cinemas and prepare to be disproved. The intricacy of the newest animation, CGI and editing are at their finest. Just like the recent Pixar films where the surface textures and lighting and atmosphere are extremely realistic, how the characters’ skin and how fabrics mirror that of reality. In this sense, we are still able to observe and be inspired by our world and environment, same as how our ancestors carved rocks into symmetrical sculptures of gods and royals. We are still able to replicate reality with skill and accuracy, the only difference is our use of art medium.
Similar to the technicality and skill, I believe that the aura in art will thrive eternally despite the effects caused by reproduction of pieces and current day’s emphasis on marketability. Although many mainstream art forms like music and some popular fashion/paintings all follow a “formula” of success (e.g. how some songs follow a pattern or similar style of music, paintings depict what masses consider aesthetically pleasing), there are still different varieties out there. Surely, these popular options may not be the most expressive or groundbreaking, and reproducibility and exhibition value also caused a lot of these less unique pieces to gain the most popularity. But to stereotype modern forms of art and critique all recent works as regular or lacking passion just screams ignorance. Our population has been increasing and many get introduced to the world of artistic expression every day. We must not underestimate the power of emotion in art. Just because we do not see mainstream representations of what we consider art with aura does not mean that it is non-existent.
At the end one the day, I think we should criticise the trends instead of all the creators. Although Benjamin’s observation of the “problematic” trend that some rising art expressions have is true, with most recent pieces being mass-produced and made palatable for the general public. But we must not be discouraged as our age still has its own gems, some hidden, some glowing in the sun. We just have to dig deeper to discover these jewels and treasure them, to encourage future generations to strive for their own aura.
Great response! Although it would be helpful to have a closer reference to Benjamin’s text in your response, it was wonderful that you try to reflect upon whether the text is still applicable to even more advanced technology in film making.
You’ve mentioned that many mainstream artform follow a “formula” of success through replicating and imitation, in a way do you think it’s a “reproduction of a process” in Benjamin words? He mentioned film is only a work of art when “is produced by means of montage” (2008, 29). Do you think this is the case for the mainstream artform that you discussed? Your reflection will be enriched by more in-depth parallels in your response, you’re getting there!