1. In the 5th section of Benjamin's piece he juxtaposes the easily reproducible medium of photography with highly coveted sculptures of Madonnas and various gods that are not only unique, but are hidden from view to the general public and for large parts of the year. Does the easy accessibility to works produced in mass quantity cheapen those works of art? Should they be considered more or less important than the statues that are so coveted?
2. In the 11th section a metaphor is posed where the filmmaker is to a painter what a doctor is to a magician. Benjamin argues that they are polar opposites, that filmmakers and doctors are deeply involved in their process and are more attuned to reality while a painter (and thus also magicians) "maintains in his work a natural distance from reality". Do you feel that this is a strong, accurate metaphor? Are films always more in tune with reality than paintings?
Importance can take on a couple of styles, in relation to question one. The importance to the creator (which is very high) and the public (which unfortunately to the creator, often varies). A word that comes up for me is intent. If it is the artist's INTENT that the photograph me seen in a largely mass produced form, then the importance and value of the photograph can remain at a high level. Because with the craft of the photographer, he/she made it that way to begin with.
ReplyDeleteThe second question addresses a radical metaphor indeed. Strong? Could be. Accurate. Very much varies. The complete opposite can be said. That paintings are a more accurate depiction of reality, because the idea of cinema can be hyperreal... Or too stylized to be considered as a compliment to the human's naked eye. We touched on it a little bit in our discussion!