Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

As time changes, as does art.  The values, techniques and styles have changed more then ever in today’s society but in all reality, a work of art has always been reproduced.  “Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. ( Benjamin)” Today, to make a look alike or to reproduce someone else’s work is simple to do therefore it is more frequently done.  Sculptures and paintings are more personalized therefore the value appears to be higher then the replicas of that work.  

According to Benjamin’s “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” with lithography the technique of reproduction reached an essentially new stage. This much more direct process was distinguished by the tracing of the design on a stone rather than its incision on a block of wood or its etching on a copperplate and permitted graphic art for the first time to put its products on the market, not only in large numbers as hitherto, but also in daily changing forms.

The question is, does the stone in which the design was sketched on have more value then the many prints made with the material? A few decades after its invention, lithography was surpassed by photography which also is done so that many copies can be produced.  Does this suggest that only the negative itself holds value?

It seems that the replicas of art done in these mediums seem to have a different value compared to paintings and sculptures.  The replicas hold more value then the object made to produce the pieces.  The more of these images that people can have is the more it can be appreciated.  When a piece can be recognized and appreciated by many people, this is what will increase the value of the work. 

“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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. (Benjamin)” This is seen more in sculptures and paintings.  In photography, prints can be made an essential amount of times therefore when it seems to be getting worn out it can simply be replaced.  With a painting the age is easily noticed by the fading of colors and the ware and tare on the piece.  It cannot easily be reproduced but if were to be, it would never be the exact duplicate.  No line would be the same and the emotion from the original artist will not be present. 

Today, a simple photograph can be taken by one artist but then made into someone else’s piece of artwork.  By the use of Photoshop and many other programs, a simple photo can be manipulated.  After this is done it becomes someone else’s work and they are the one who receives the credit. Is this fare? Should the person who took the original photo get complete recognition of the piece?  Although some photos can be purchased at a small price, after it is in the hands of the new owner and it is changed, even the slightest bit, the value may become much higher then the photos original price.  To many this is an unfair conclusion. If it were not for the original photograph the piece would have not existed, therefore when the value of an altered piece of work increases, that person should get credit as well.

Bibliography

Benjamin, Walter.  Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.  1935.

Advertisement