Question 1: Walter describes a term aura as "that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction." This is the loss in a work of art from the original. However, this is all dependent on the human perception of this work. With the strides in technology, it technology can now capture certain objects with even more complexity and depth than what can be viewed with the human eye. For instance, a human can only view at 60 frames per second, however we now have cameras that can capture at 100+ fps. In cases like this, do you believe the "aura" to actually be positive gain instead of negative loss from the original?
Question 2: In section VIII, Walter discusses the differences in a stage act and a film. He states one of the main differences is with whom the audience will associate with. He states that "The audience’s identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera". Both representations, film and stage performance, limit the scope to which the audience sees the work. Film shows the work through the eyes of the camera, which tries to capture the idea viewpoint as per the director's will. Stage deletes the middle/camera man, and allows for personal view; however, this is done strictly from only one static viewpoint as opposed to a dynamic viewpoint found in film. Which method do you believe allows for the most personal interpretation from an individual? Is there even a difference?
Absolutely both positive and negative, JC. I suppose in this scenario, it could veer into how an art piece captures the imagination of an audience. 100+ fps has the potential to both increase the captive imagination (aura) of society and lessen it. Lessen, because it is such a clear vision of reality, that it seems like there is no need to see with our own eyes. We have the tools right in front of us to do it for us. But higher, because such ridiculous heights of documentation present reality as 'hyperreal', where it becomes more of a fantasy based mechanical eye. So smooth, we could never do it ourselves. Thus, the mechanical object becomes somewhat imaginary.
ReplyDeleteThese days, it is hard to tell the difference. Society has become very accustomed now to the 'rules' of viewing both stage acting and film acting. Since we know the rules so well, the differences between them almost become mute. We observe both in one beam of expression. On a technical level, obvious differences. On a social level, right, who knows the difference anymore?