I agree with what Hew said, but there are some other obvious
mistakes...
Nuutti-Iivari Meriläinen said...
quoted 18 lines > http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ednwww/Undgrad/ED10510/benjamin.html
>
> I'll quote a bit for those who don't have enough time or patience to
> read the whole essay:
>
> ------ BEGIN QUOTE ------
>
> Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one
> element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place
> where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art
> determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its
> existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered
> in physical
> condition over the years as well as the various changes in its
> ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or
> physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction;
> changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from
> the situation of the original.
How is ownership of a piece of art relevant to the work itself?
Or the fact that someone spilt a curry on a Picasso? does the
ruined picasso become more "art" than the perfect reproduction
that was made before the curry was spilt? (Extreme example I know,
but the same holds true for normal erosion suffered sitting in some
museum somewhere) Also, neither of these points have any baring on music.
because all music is reproduction why should a legal reproduction hold
more weight than an illegal one?
quoted 13 lines The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be
> The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be
> brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its
> presence is always depreciated. This holds not only for the art work but
> also, for instance, for a landscape which passes in review before the
> spectator in a movie. In the case of the art object, a most sensitive
> nucleus - namely, its authenticity - is interfered with whereas no natural
> object is vulnerable on that score. The authenticity of a thing is the
> essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its
> substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has
> experienced. Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the
> former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration
> ceases to matter. And what is really jeopardized when the historical
> testimony is affected is the authority of the object.
He semes to think that an original object of art holds some form of
platonic "Essence", essences are a seriously outdated philosophical
concept, as much 30 years ago as they are today. If it is impossible
to tell the difference between an original and a forgery (With advances
in art-restoration and computers this has come a long way in the last
30 years) then how can the experience of looking at/listening to/reading
the piece of art be effected? It can't. Art is about the expreience inside
the brains of the people experiencing the art not the pieces themselves.
And objects of art cant have experiences, thats just stupid.
Is a Bach CD not a work of art because it was not originally released on CD
therefore the actual work of art must be the original sheet music or
somesuch?
I think not, the art that is music is the Sound. Sound does not exist
outside
of the human brain. The packaging might be pretty to look at, even in some
cases
art, but it has nothing at the end of the day to do with the music.
Appreciation of music is not affected by the fact that it was originaly
bought
in a shop or wether it was downloaded off the internet.
quoted 11 lines The usual counterargument is that the more the music spreads, the more
> The usual counterargument is that the more the music spreads, the more
> people will actually buy it. I do not subscribe to this line of thought,
> because most people are not willing to pay if they don't have to (and
> please don't quote the sales figures of big companies - they do not
> apply to the question at hand - independent labels can't take it up
> the rear like huge music conglomerates can). The second counterargument is
> that the releases may be limited edition and very hard to get or not
> obtainable at all anymore - well, tough. If you really appreciate the
> music, you should be willing to search for it and pay for it. I welcome
> the death of Napster, and I would rather not see any more CDR trade posts
> on the list either.
I think electronic music is an excellent example of why this point is
invalid.
There really is a ridiculously huge amount of it out there, much more so
than
other genres. It would be impossible (even if you're completley loaded) to
buy everything that comes out. So Napster (and before that FTP) is an
excellent
way to enjoy lots of music you wouldn't otherwise have come across or been
able
to buy. Obviously independant labels need more suport from customers than
the
majors. But it's impossible for customers to support all the independants
because
of the amount of different stuff that's out there. I love music, making and
listening to it is my faveourite passtime. And I'm not going to let my lack
of money / inability to find stuff / inability of labels to rerelease stuff
get
in the way of my enjoyment of music. I will always buy music with my money,
it's my first priority (after Guinness & Wine possibly), when I get the
chance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org