Davis' The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction is kind of confusing, because he seems almost to change his point of view halfway through. After reading through important parts again, I believe what he's trying to say is that it would take some study to find the difference between the original and a reproduction because we don't have the same ideas of originality because of digital influence. His second point, I think, is that because of this, the original art and the digital reproductions are merging in our minds.
I disagree with some of this. Digital reproductions of paintings are not the same as viewing a painting. It's hard to know the size of the painting, particularly if there's no context. Even if there is, it's not the same as experiencing it in front of you. I can Google "Mona Lisa" and see the painting in seconds, but it may be cropped, the colors may not be right, etc. But how do I know if it's seven feet wide or thirty inches? What if it's an oil painting? I can't see the dimensional quality of it.
It's not just limited to paintings. A Photoshop file may be flattened and exported as a JPG or a PNG, but you can never get an idea of HOW the file was made unless you have the layered document. The same with a RAW photograph.
I believe the ideas of originality are still in mind. You can find originality anywhere. It's true that reproduction and editing have become more popular in our digital age, but to say that the original and the reproduction are merging is silly. Marketability is also a factor. When something sells well, other people want to sell something similar. This has always been, but now, it's just easier.
No comments:
Post a Comment