The Art of Reproduction

<Figure 1>

In 1995, Douglas Davis published a piece on the reproduction of art in the Leonardo journal. Davis stated, “[t]here is no longer a clear conceptual distinction between original and reproduction in virtually any medium based in film, electronics, or telecommunications” (381-386).

In his article, Davis described the advancements in technology that gave artists the tools to reproduce as much as they liked without losing aesthetic value. The artist’s ability to reproduce sometimes only enhanced their abilities, allowing them to create new, dramatically different pieces of art.

<Figure 2>

Almost sixty years before Davis and his defense of digital reproduction, Walter Benjamin published The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936), where he argued that “the technique of reproduction detache[d] the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (Benjamin). This loss of tradition Benjamin describe[d] as the “aura” of the art. The aura of an art piece, he said, “withers in the age of mechanical reproduction” (Benjamin).  

Although Davis and Benjamin stand on different ends of the reproduction spectrum, I feel that there is a sense of truth in what they both have to say.

Davis is very correct in believing that reproduction can give artists a lot of freedom. As it is, I can take one picture and reproduce it 1000 times, yet have a different picture each time. Take as a small example <Figure 3>. The collage of photos shown all stemmed from the same image, but after reproduction I was able to create a new piece of art with a new meaning. With reproduction, all these combined images mean more than one ever could on its own.

<Figure 3> 

On the other hand, Benjamin is also very right in believing that reproduction cannot only lower an artworks value, but art can also lose its sense of uniqueness. Seeing the same image over and over again isn’t art, it’s propaganda and advertising. The moment that reproduction is used to convey a message that doesn’t need much interpretation the aura is lost.

However, with technological advancements only increasing, it would be foolish to view art as aura-less. Instead, in the words of Davis, the aura of an art piece should be experienced in the “originality of the moment when we see, hear, read, repeat, revise.”

Figures

<Figure 1>Douglas Davis. N.d. Photograph. UC Berkele'ys Center for New MediaWeb. 20 Oct 2013.          <http://atc.berkeley.edu/bio/Douglas_Davis/>.

<Figure 2>Claude, Kipper. The Work Of Art In The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction. N.d. Book                Cover.      Amazon.comWeb. 20 Oct 2013.

<Figure 3> Cuevas, Gabriela. My Magic Boots. 2013. Photographic Collage. Blogger.comWeb. 20 Oct        2013.

Sources

Benjamin, Walter . The Work Of Art In The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction. Prism Key Press, 2010.        50. print.

Davis, Douglas. "The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction (An Evolving Thesis: 1991-                1995)."Leonardo. 28.5    (1995): 381-386. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.                                                           <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576221>.

Vesna, Victoria. "Robotics Art." DESMA 9. UC Online. . Lecture.

Related Sites

This site sells real reproductions of famous art pieces. http://www.reproductionart.org/

This site sells  industrial art. http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/industrial/all