Response 24: "The Work of Art In The Age Of Its Technological Reproducibility"

The discussion about the original versus a copy/an imitation is interesting, and each has their own strengths. However, I do agree that in regards to a technological copy, “In even the most perfect reproduction, one thing is lacking…its unique existence in a particular place” (157). One example is Anne Boleyn’s prayer book (the original) that she used and jotted notes in that is now located in the Vatican library. Even someone took pictures/copies of the pages (I don’t know if that would even be allowed), and “technological production can place the copy of the original in situations which the original itself cannot attain”, these photographic copies would still not hold the same value as the original prayer book (157). However, my intention is not to state that the technological copies do not contain any value at all, because they do as they would enable a larger audience to see firsthand the prayers and pictures included in the book and the notes along some of the margins. In this particular case, perhaps one reason that the value of the original is cannot be attained by a technological copy is because it somehow lets touch a piece of art from its origin of “unique existence” hundreds of years ago.

In other cases, I must agree that the technological copy is better, for example:  “the camera eye can see deeper into the close-up world (such as macro photography), and slow-motion film reveals movements never before observed by the human eye. In other words, the copy outperforms the original” (155). While experiencing the original (for example touching the old pages of the prayer book and examining the texture) is not replicable, the value of a technological copy can sometimes be just as important, if not more than the original. Going back to the importance of photography and video recorded by camera, those technological copies of times in the past can prove to be invaluable, for example when perhaps detectives are trying to solve a crime. Even photographs and video (technological replications of either art or even life as it is today) will no doubt be valuable a hundred years from now when culture, fashion, technology etcetera have advanced because they will record this aura/existence that others will be able to see and learn about the 21st century from.