GeekinthePink

Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” describes an art slowly losing its artistic value. “To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose ‘sense of the universal equality of things’ has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction.” I was thinking of all art in general—paintings, sculpting, music, etc. I used to really love Van Gogh paintings—really, any of them. Considered one of the founders of expressionism—his incorporation of neo-impressionism and recognizable style was something that for me, set him apart. But, after I repainted my room and looked around for Van Gogh paintings, I realized that everyone had them. A replication of Van Gogh’s “The Starry Night” was on sale at Wal-Mart for $2.99 (small version however). The consequence of this? I decided against the whole idea. Even now, although I know it is not the fault of Van Gogh, I don’t really appreciate his work like I used to. Can we really appreciate a work if it is reproduced for the masses? Or should we simply be able to view it from afar? I think it is not made for everyone to put in their little pocket and look at whenever they feel the urge. Instead, as Benjamin says, it exists on the plane of the “exhibition value of the work.” Furthermore, that the importance of art lies in the fact that it simply exists, therefore, the value remains intact and not watered down for mass society. That such great art exists is a credit to that art work, and the mass reproduction is a disservice of technology (alas, I both hate and love you technology).
I was just thinking about Britney Spears, queen of pop (a gruesome title to hold, sure). Everybody was abuzz about her “comeback” performance on the VMA’s Sunday night. So what were people expecting her to do? Come out, with a rock-hard body and dance around in a skimpy outfit, offering some type of come-and-get-it lyrics. But apparently, she disappointed. Why? Because there was a cookie-cutter form into which music is supposed to fit. This type of music, made to please the popular crowd, has been watered down in the same way Van Gogh has—it has been put into a form that is easier for everyone to handle. The musical quality of popular music is not the same—its lyrics are sparse and are mostly in the form of trying to get someone’s attention sexually (wow…I’ve just described the top 20 of the week in one sentence…scary). I think with the invention of technology in music and the fact that we can turn on MTV and see music videos (can’t we imagine music for ourselves instead of having some director program a mood for us with images? Another product of technology interacting with fine art) greatly diminish art. “In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power.”
Whether in music or painting, the age of mechanical reproduction has greatly hindered art. Oh yeah. And Britney. Please. Go home.