1. Benjamin repeatedly asserts that the most notable difference between traditional and mechanical media is that the former has its own 'aura'. However, photographers and movie directors go to great lengths to try and replicate mood and understanding through their works. Additionally, photographs and films are considered art in modern day. Is it true that mechanical media does not have an aura? Is aura necessary for art?
2. It is clear that the advancement of mechanical media has an impact on traditional art. Do the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa? Would art be better without these technological advances?
I believe all art items in some way have 'aura' (the colorful description by Walt). Though they vary in scale. In my neutral belief, all medium, film, video, or analog, can have the same amount of aura. None are stronger than the other. All expressions are strong, dependent on the treatment of the tools involved. If a team of people go to great lengths to recreate a scene of the original, then that effort is received and cherished by the audience. As for if aura is necessary... Not at all. A strong piece may be distributable on the front page news, and seen immediately.
ReplyDeleteI may have possibly answered question 2 on question 1 too. Ha. But more specifically, art can be better 'with' the technological advances. I think it is a matter of who has the technology, and what good they should do with it. Intent matters a lot. If someone intentionally does something positive with the tools, then art is better for it.