1. In the section II, he mentioned, "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". Thus, reproduction of art loses the concept of authenticity and then it also shows us that there is no historical evidence of existing specific period of time. Can it be still a good tool to determine the history even if it does not retain the concept of authenticity?
2. In modern days, the new form of arts have been created such as performing art or installation. These kind of, sort of "performance art" needs the element, such as specific time or space, so it cannot have the element of reproducibility. Photography is similar to these kind of modern arts because the time or space are specified and the one moment to take a shoot is only one time. However, he mentioned that photography is the reproductive work. Is is true?
These reproduced items can be very effective at determining a historical period. And very interesting to considering them as such. Such as, what kind of texture, binary, or more would change to determine a carbon date. I am curious to think years from now how our own digital creations as files would read, and how they could determine our history.
ReplyDeletePhotography is both reproductive and 'moment' based. I believe every photographer I've ever met considers a photograph one 'vaccum of time'. Or one moment. If ever I considered to them that a photograph was a performative act, they denied me. Haha.