Photography Reader- Benjamin

Photography, as well as other advances in technology, changed the way that art is viewed, produced, and interpreted. The “eye can perceive more quickly than the hand can draw” and photography allowed the process of “pictorial reproduction” to accelerate to the extent that a single instant could be preserved. From photography followed sound film which enabled “reality” to be captured in a way that it could not before.

The ability to reproduce famous works of art changed their impact and interpretation by the public. Reproduction became an art form in itself. The original holds all of its authority in the presence of a reproduction, but the fact that the reproduction exists changes the meaning of this authority. Reproduction enables artwork to meet the viewer halfway. It makes it possible to view works of art, in reproduced form, which otherwise would have remained a mystery. This, it appears, has both advantages and disadvantages.

“The work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed to be reproduced.” With the knowledge that reproduction is the final stage in the creation of an image, the decision making during the development is likely to be affected. Viewing this image, the first thought that comes to my mind is reproduction. The choice of the photographer to include the negative strip and a section of the upcoming photograph immediately reminds me of the reproducibility of the image. A slightly altered version of this image would not be hard to come by. The idea of an “original” print is photography is a strange concept as many different prints can be made from a negative. Which is the original?

The focus on reproduction has led to a shift in meaning of an image. Whereas the focus used to be on the ritual and the importance of the subject matter, it seems now to have shifted to what will be seen by the viewer rather than the importance of the actual scene. The importance of aura itself has shifted. There is a different focus when producing a work of art to be a simultaneous collective experience, as can be done with photography, than when this collective experience is not a possibility when creating a painting.

A “different nature opens itself to the camera than opens itself to the naked eye.” It is important to remember that although photography can capture an instant, there is still a question as to whether or not this instant represents reality. Individuals often act differently when being photographed and scenes will be staged in order to create a desirable final image. In this particular image, the family is staged and although it may be a representation of the time and the family, there is still a question as to its relation to reality.