Should research into mechanical reproduction technologies be unlimited? This question is a key one for the future of art. It is difficult to imagine art in a world without reproduction. Creating a mechanical replica of a work of art will completely change the way we view it and, ultimately, the way we react to it. In the age of mass production, we tend to consume conventional works uncritically, but we despise anything new and different.
The role of human hands in the creation of art
In this article, we will look at the history of the camera and how early critics of film reacted to mechanical advances. In Benjamin’s article, he discusses the role of the human hand in the creation of art. The camera replaces the art of working with hands, whereas early critics of film see the importance of ritualistic methods. While mechanical reproduction has enabled the creation of new forms of art, it has also made it possible to improve existing forms of art.
The ability to reproduce everything expands the range of objects
In another article, Benjamin examines how mechanical advances have altered the meaning of art. He argues that the increasing speed of reproduction and the ability to reproduce everything expands the range of objects that can be produced and devalues the original. To truly appreciate an object, it must have a specific purpose and a unique existence. In many ways, the traditional definition of art is a result of the human hand.
Mechanical reproduction has a negative impact on the traditional meaning of the industry
Benjamin argues that mechanical reproduction has a negative impact on the traditional meaning of art. He argues that the use of reproduction technologies has created a political aesthetic that has devalued the original. In contrast, the Communist use of mechanical reproduction technology resists this influence and aims to redistribute property. In his book, he explains the history of mechanical reproduction and the role it plays in the production of art.
New technologies can adversely affect the traditional meaning of the industry
While Benjamin’s arguments have been controversial, they are still a useful starting point for debate. The first is that the new technology may have an adverse effect on the traditional meaning of art. If the new technology is more efficient and cheaper, then the artist will have to compromise on the original for the sake of the new technology. It will also be better for the artist if the process is more effective and aesthetically pleasing.
While Benjamin’s argument is persuasive, he also raises important ethical issues. Consider Benjamin’s essay, “Should research into mechanical reproduction technologies be unlimited? “, by Hannah Arendt, in the same vein, asks the same question. But in the end, Benjamin’s arguments are not surprising. If one believes that the new technology does not threaten artistic values, then it should be banned.