Art should be experienced: a good work of art cannot be successfully reproduced or explained, indeed, that is ultimately the only reason art is important in the age of corporate commodity culture: it has an aura that cannot be contained-it is a result of a peculiar man-made alchemy that comes closest to recreating the soul.
Someone's read their Walter Benjamin recently...
So why is art that you can experience in person -- visual art, and some of the performing arts -- considered so different from art that depends on the age of mechanical reproduction, as it were? Would this person consider there to be art in film or digital worlds? Or would the experience of watching / playing be considered a sufficient qualifier
( ... )
So why is art that you can experience in person -- visual art, and some of the performing arts -- considered so different from art that depends on the age of mechanical reproduction, as it were? Would this person consider there to be art in film or digital worlds? Or would the experience of watching / playing be considered a sufficient qualifier?Perhaps this is just me injecting my own interpretation into it (which is really the best you can do without actually asking Keith himself, lol), but I think that the most original first-hand experience of the art is what we should strive to experience
( ... )
Comments 2
Someone's read their Walter Benjamin recently...
So why is art that you can experience in person -- visual art, and some of the performing arts -- considered so different from art that depends on the age of mechanical reproduction, as it were? Would this person consider there to be art in film or digital worlds? Or would the experience of watching / playing be considered a sufficient qualifier ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment