Writing: Gorey and Benjamin
I first experienced Edward Gorey as a freshman in college, right around the time I was introduced to the dark, dry humor of "Dr. Strangelove" and "The Mouse That Roared". For fans of droll, dark humor, Gorey must be excellent. I thought his work was cute (if that term can be applied to pitch-black humor), but it doesn't grab me the way some fans of his stories describe. Here's a link to the pages of The Gashlycrumb Tinies, an alphabet primer-style picture book that describes the different demises of 26 unfortunate youngsters.
Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", written in 1936, describes the shift of art from unique, ritual entities to easily accessible, fluid mediums. The concept of art as a cult-based structure, with portraits as part of the "cult of remembrance", struck me as intriguing. He also mentioned that film-makers "penetrate" reality as opposed to observing it like a painter, but I don't agree with that. Perhaps I am simply so used to movies that both films and paintings are just two more rivulets in the deluge of opinion we experience every day.
His idea that mass-produceable art is no longer unique yet reactivated by reaching new viewers makes sense to me. Thanks to my laptop and Google Images, I can view the Sistine Chapel's ceiling on a whim without getting out of bed. Granted, the laptop presents a tiny, pixelated shadow of Michelangelo's paintings, but at least I can see the subject matter and painting style whereas before photography I would have had to rely on sketched copies or actually traveling to Italy and experiencing the chapel in person. Does this ease of access diminish the impact of classical works of art? Possibly. Does it diminish the impact of modern communication by giving a 12-year-old the same ability to publish as experienced journalists? Probably. (journalists can publish to more prestigious distributors, true, but both can put their ideas out there on the internet)
Also, is anyone else an Ender's Game fan? This is from www.xkcd.com
Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", written in 1936, describes the shift of art from unique, ritual entities to easily accessible, fluid mediums. The concept of art as a cult-based structure, with portraits as part of the "cult of remembrance", struck me as intriguing. He also mentioned that film-makers "penetrate" reality as opposed to observing it like a painter, but I don't agree with that. Perhaps I am simply so used to movies that both films and paintings are just two more rivulets in the deluge of opinion we experience every day.
His idea that mass-produceable art is no longer unique yet reactivated by reaching new viewers makes sense to me. Thanks to my laptop and Google Images, I can view the Sistine Chapel's ceiling on a whim without getting out of bed. Granted, the laptop presents a tiny, pixelated shadow of Michelangelo's paintings, but at least I can see the subject matter and painting style whereas before photography I would have had to rely on sketched copies or actually traveling to Italy and experiencing the chapel in person. Does this ease of access diminish the impact of classical works of art? Possibly. Does it diminish the impact of modern communication by giving a 12-year-old the same ability to publish as experienced journalists? Probably. (journalists can publish to more prestigious distributors, true, but both can put their ideas out there on the internet)
Also, is anyone else an Ender's Game fan? This is from www.xkcd.com
Comments