Last class we talked about Benjamin, Works of Art. From this we started to debate if the reprodiction of a piece of art loses it's value and/or originality. Does it become a different work of art if reproduced by a differnt person? It depends, like most of our discussions do, on the situation. FOr example we have the Mona Lisa, a beautiful piece of art that is known around the world. But why is it known around the world? Was the artist just lucky to have so many fans identify one of many works of art? Or did it become well known because of the reproduction of it that we see on the internet, or in textbooks, or in stories? If so does it take away the magic of experiencing this piece of art?
Sorry, for pushing all these questions but I assure you I have a point. Many of us don't have the oppertunity to go to Paris and see the original Mona Lisa. Many of us don't get the chance to experience that moment when they see it for the first time and take in the art but we do get to experience a different moment when we look at it for the first time. Maybe it's not as grand as looking at the original but the importance is still there. There is still a moment, still an experience. Is it fair to have someone rate that or is this just a private relationship to be expeienced between the art, the creator, and the audience?
We can even argue that the reason the Mona Lisa is so famous is because of its reproduction. There are plenty of different pieces of beautiful art but when asked to name them some of us draw a blank. And that's okay. There's a good chance you only saw that piece of art once but the image is still in your head but the title could have been lost. I'm sure if you saw it over and over again in textbooks, movies, or posters you would not only know the name but the artict and when it was created.