As the function of artworks have changed throughout human history, so have images of humans. Artworks have gone from having a definite purpose to existing within the context of its social function. This photograph may have been taken for purposes of record, correspondence, or memory, but within a modern context could have other implications. The image was presented without any information on its ownership, age, or where the photograph was taken, which obscures its cultural value. The fact that there is no actual original version aids in this and makes it easier to conceal such things. This photograph, by the fact of it being a photograph and placed in digital format to be downloaded online, has lost its potential for politicization.
Those in need of proof for the reproducibility of art separating the audience from the original experience should look at the metadata on the .tiff file; An analog photograph which appears to be quite a few years old (judging by the way the people are dressed) has been brought to the masses (digitally) by a scanner from 2007. There has been room for the uniqueness of the original experience to be altered by the copying of the image from its original color space to a digital approximation of that space called “Nikon Apple RGB”.
Photographs can allow the audience to experience things they normally cannot achieve. It is difficult to look at objects close and objects far away simultaneously, but with this photograph, the background and foreground are in focus simultaneously. The absence of an artist illustrates the decline of the exclusivity of art. The person in the bottom appears to be holding the mechanism that opens the camera, so there wasn't even a photographer. No painter was necessary, nor even a photographer. Art for the common people.
From the film, an indefinite number of copies can be made, which further erodes the exclusivity of that image. This image was posted online. The fact that the photograph is reproducible causes this erosion to occur. It makes a visual experience possible only under certain circumstances for normal vision, possible for many. The hilly landscape appears inside one's house through a computer monitor. If the owner of the photograph valued the aura of the image, it is a bit of irony that he contributed to the decay of the aura by allowing the film negative to be reproduced.
http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/1ex.jpg
http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/2ex.jpg
http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/3ex.jpg
http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/4ex.jpg
http://nkirkpatrick.com/2site/5ex.jpg
Favorite Music of 2010
-
2010 has been an odd, disorienting year for music. I have been buying,
collecting it for over 30 years, and this year, I finally am experiencing
the shift ...
14 years ago
1 comment:
I found this reflection to be intersting because of the unique way that the author of this reflection used the voice of Benjamin. He employed the voice in a manner that not only looked at the appearance and function of the image, but also investigated the image on a more formal and technical level.
The way the author described originality through both the formal and technical terms had a greater impact on me, becasue it emphasized that basically photography has in a way changed the function of photography. For example, through the manner in which the photograph was shared with our class although their might have been an original purpose of the photograph, it has now lost it originality and identity thorugh the reproduction and accessiblity of it.
The way in which Nick chose to breakdown every aspect of the origin of the image that we, as a class, recieved, demonstated in this technical way, for me helped to understand exactly what i think Benjamin was trying to express (although Benjamin wrote his piece in an early time period).
Post a Comment