Walter Benjamin article

I think it’s fairly accurate to say that Walter Benjamin and I have little in common. He truly understood art and I don’t. Even though I don’t consider myself to be an aficionado of the arts, I have felt a sense of appreciation for certain works. I can remember when I saw ‘The Thinker’ on a traveling exhibit or when I was viewing various paintings and the like at the British Museum in London during my one trip overseas. However, the reproduction of art in the modern world is of little concern to me and I think the claims here of negative fallout because of photography or moving pictures isn’t warranted. I understand that things do lose their ‘aura’ when you’re not seeing the original but in the grand scheme of things, this is inconsequential. If anything, seeing art through a picture online or in a print magazine only makes me want to see the original a little more if possible. That is probably why I did go with my mom when I was in junior high to see the Rhodan exhibit because I’d seen its representation elsewhere and here was a chance to see it in person. It’s like the difference between hearing your favorite musical artist’s music through some media and still wanting to see them in concert because you’d seen the representation of them already.
I could only agree with the author in the idea that seeing in person is better for appreciating the artwork’s intrinsic value, but not completly . I think of the difference of seeing a movie in the theater and seeing it at home on dvd-there’s just something about being there that even the best Blue-ray, 1080 pixeled flat screen, home theatre system home environment can’t beat. At least, I think so as I don’t own any of these home entertainment devices. Benjamin may be right that the live performance is better than the movie production since the live actors can feed off of or adjust to the audience present with them as opposed to those actors who can only hope they’ve truly conveyed the screenplay’s intent with the help of the producer and/or director. However, I prefer the movie theater and its product for the opposite reason that Benjamin seems to think makes the live stage preferable-the artificiality. To see the set in-person just emphasizes that this isn’t real, just like witnessing an actor’s live gaff. These things only make me realize just how fake this production is and that to me takes away some of that ‘aura’ that a film’s editing and special effects can do away with without the audience even knowing, thus maintaining that believability. I do however agree that more often than not, you can better reflect on a painting or physical work of art better than you can most films. At least in a movie theater you can’t go back and rewind though since the emergence of dvr players, I’ve wanted to a time or two. Many people though can think of movies which have moved them and which have stuck with them even though they’d only seen them once. In this day and age, if you didn’t get the full meaning of a film it’s not difficult to go and pick up a copy of it on dvd to rent or own.