PL 4-5

Something that really stood out to me in chapter 5 was the following passage:

"Benjamin argued that the result of mechanical reproduction was a profound change in the function of art. He stated, 'Instead of being based on ritual, [art] begins to be based on another practice--politics.'...It is central to the concept that reproduction allows images to circulate with political meaning and that mechanically or electronically reproduced images can be in many places simultaneously and can be combined with text or other images or reworked. These capabilities have greatly increased the ability to captivate and persuade" (199).

Given this passage, it seems that Benjamin (and if not Benjamin himself, then many others) were against reproduction capability because it polluted the world and spread propaganda--but I believe the opposite. Though original art works are more costly, more difficult to obtain, and more precious than reprints, I believe the world would be a much different place without access to artwork. One of the central purposes of art is to provide the world with a looking glass and a perspective, and without wide availability of said artwork, art would be even more of an elitist field.

There are several works of art that are easily recognizable to most people. One of these is "Starry Night." Though the majority of the world has probably not seen the original piece, it is widely recognizable because of the reproductions of the work. Reproducing the work gives scholars the opportunity to teach the work to students in a medium that can be studied. In my opinion, these are all positive "consequences" to reproducible art. The comment that Benjamin makes that reproducibility offers the opportunity for artwork to "captivate and persuade" is a very truthful statement, but this technology is much more positive and deserves much more credit than he gives it. Passing art over into the realm of politics is one of the many facets of the discipline.