I decided to write a brief blog following our class (tutorial) discussion on popular/famous art in relation to Benjamin's arguments.
Ever since the question in class was asked (along the lines of): "...any thoughts on a piece of art that has been seen and duplicated almost everywhere in our world?" the first response that came up was the Mona Lisa! Shortly after the professor added examples such as Che Guevara, Marcel Duchamp, The Shroud of Turin, etc. Personally, I would have added something like The Statue of David, Medusa or even The Pope (Just as a side, and too late for that now anyways!)
Since our discussion time ran out in class, we continued it over in the tutorial session and surprisingly enough we decided to stick with the Mona Lisa and center our whole talk around it. We then looked at the arguments by Walter Benjamin- where he stresses: a.) authenticity and b.) the only thing mechanical production does to a piece of work is the fact that it makes it stand out. While this is true, mechanical production/duplication/availability to the masses only makes that piece of work loose its 'aura' and perhaps even its 'value'. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
As the discussion carried on, we established that when a piece of work (or art) has its original 'aura', it is often like a cult, however, once it is mechanically produced or duplicated that object becomes political. So the class concluded that the Mona Lisa is a political thing now because it has lost its 'aura' due to the fact it is seen everywhere, even on key chains!
Fair enough! but there was a short discussion (we ran out of time) that went along the lines of: "everything ever produced has some sort of political attachment to it!" Can we really say that though?
I can understand a famous political figure like Che, for example, that wanted his image to be remembered in the political arena and in politics all around the world, for his efforts to achieve a goal. We also know he wanted to be known as a strong political figure because he says that many times throughout his life and even in his writings. But to say that even the thought to paint the Mona Lisa was political is a bit of a far stretch in my opinion! I don't think Da Vinci sat there thinking, Hmm, how can I make this painting political? What do you guys think?
What I can agree with is the fact that we (in contemporary society) turn things like the Mona Lisa, the figure of the Pope, or Medusa into something political! (Just the simple example that the Mona Lisa and The Pope were used in Hollywood movies like EuroTrip!) (Or how we used Medusa in political cartoons to symbolize political figures such as Bush or Bin Laden) But I don't think it is correct to say that everything (even before its creation) has to have some sort of political attachment!?
Ill ask:
Do you think feelings -(feelings that drove Da Vinci to paint the Mona Lisa or the creation of Medusa)- are always attached to politics?
Can we really conclude that everything ever produced was done with a political intention?
-Andrei
I do not believe that everything ever produced was done with a political intention, and this point also came up in my tutorial. We discussed that art originally was painted with more of a religious intention.
ReplyDeleteArt used to be produced mostly on walls or places that were more privatized, which forced people to go and visit the art versus having all the art hung in one location (like the Louvre). However, when art started to be painted on wood or canvas that is when a political intention got put into play. The artists were making paintings that were more freely accessible to the public and not only to the bourgeoisie class, showing that art can be appreciated by all.
But then again, I personally don't believe that the Mona Lisa, Starry Night, or The Scream were first painted by the artist to have solely a political statement. I believe the artists painted these works of art for themselves or to portray a message. I think it is the general public, or a group of said people, that attach political statements to these works; they are trying to affix a meaning that is beyond the artistic notion of the painting.
So I believe that people can say or think that everything ever produced was done with a political intention, but I don’t think that this is necessarily the case.