Art in the age of biocybernetic reproduction
On p. 487, Mitchell writes, "...the copy is no longer an inferior or decayed relic of the original, but is in principle an improvement on the original..." In the next paragraph, he explains Benjamin's point that photographic copies produced a "decay of the aura" and then he states that now a "...copy has, if anything, even more aura than the original."
This is fascinating to me. How could you help students understand the idea of an aura in a classroom? How could students be introduced to the idea that a copy is not inferior? Any thoughts as to how you could work with these ideas and students? How could this relate to the study of 'Net or Web artists?
Comments
I think the concept of aura and reproduction would be a great conversation for high schoolers especially in relation to reproduced graphics used in class. I don't know that I would present Mitchell's assertion as gospel as I don't quite agree with it.
Posted by: Shannon Reibel | February 14, 2007 5:37 PM
It is hard for me to use the word copy and not imply something negative. I wonder if the wording was different rather than a copy, but a reference or a study.
Posted by: Sasha | February 14, 2007 5:39 PM
I think the concept of aura and reproduction would be a great conversation for high schoolers especially in relation to reproduced graphics used in class. I don't know that I would present Mitchell's assertion as gospel as I don't quite agree with it.
Posted by: Shannon Reibel | February 14, 2007 5:39 PM