For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual.
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” “The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. This tradition itself is thoroughly alive and extremely changeable. An ancient statue of Venus, for example, stood in a different traditional context with the Greeks, who made it an object of veneration, than with the clerics of the Middle Ages, who viewed it as an ominous idol. Both of them, however, were equally confronted with its uniqueness, that is, its aura. Originally the contextual integration of art in tradition found its expression in the cult…. [T]he unique value o the ‘authentic’ work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value.”
cult value vs. exhibition value: “Today the cult value would seem to demand that the work of art remain hidden…. With the emancipation of the various art practices from ritual go increasing opportunities for the exhibition of their products.”
Reproduction & The Shattering of Aura
“In principle a work of art has always been reproducible” – e.g., founding, stamping, woodcut, print, engraving, etching, lithography, photography “In photography, exhibition value begins to displace cult value all along the line.” – but cult value did not recede quietly; early photographs retained some measure of “aura” by focusing on the human countenance – But as photography took on other subjects, “the exhibition value for the first time shows its superiority to the ritual value.” Photography took on new purposes — to establish evidence, for instance – and necessitated new kind of approach; contemplation is no longer appropriate. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity…. Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was usually branded a forgery, the original preserved all its authority; not so vis a vis technical reproduction. The reason is twofold. First, process reproduction is more independent of the original than manual reproduction…. Secondly, technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself. Above all, it enables the original to meet the beholder halfway, be it in the form of a photograph or a photograph record.”
Dan showed us a remix which was realllllllyyyy good and i will defs listen to it more:
