Cognition, creation, comprehension
Freeland poses a valid question in this chapter, "Can we just look at an artwork for enjoyment?" I feel like this addresses what we've been talking about during our classes. Do we have to know the background of the pieces? Do we need to know what the artist's intention was when he/she created it? I don't think that we do. In some cases yes, it does help to know some background about the piece or the artist or the time period the art was created in, but at the same time, I think it's almost better to take your own reaction and form your own thoughts about a piece of art.
Digitizing and disseminating
Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David are images that are being reproduced in the world so much that, She poses the question of whether we actually know what they look like. The many reproductions show Mona Lisa with a mustache or David wearing clothes, Freeland says are all ubiquitous. Not only is some art reproduced so often it almost loses its value, you can now visit a museum without even going to one. Websites offer 360' degree panoramas or artworks, and view their scrutinize the details of every paining. Art has become this widely accessible by the technologies of the world. Walter Benjamin said in his essay, "the loss of aura was not a bad thing."
Are we losing the real sense of art in our world, by not viewing them in person? Will Museums that hold the wonders of past artists become something extinct due to the widening use of technology and our busy world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment