Industrialization has
undoubtedly been advantageous to the making of art, science, and technology but
has arguably hindered the public’s understanding and appreciation of them. Industrialization was a major factor in the re-emergence of
photography in the early twentieth century as photographers could more easily
develop their photos using ready-made supplies. Before the nineteenth century,
most art pieces could not be reproduced without great effort; however, with the
introduction of lithography, drawings could be mass-produced using carvings on
stone. Then, with photography, there was no longer a need to use the more
laborious albeit artistic method of lithography, reducing pictorial
reproduction to simply looking through a lens. In addition to that, as stated
in History of Information, “there was strong demand for increased printing
speed to produce more and more copies of daily newspapers”, thus resulting in
even more inventions such as the steam-powered press which allowed for even
easier and faster reproduction than ever. However, while Victoria Vesna compliments
this “wide distribution of the printing press made possible the rapid
dispersion of knowledge”, Douglas Davis laments this in his comment: “Walter
Benjamin’s proclamation of doom for the aura of originality…is finally
confirmed by these events” (Lecture Part 1; The
Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction 1). Making art was now
easier; artists no longer had to sit down and paint a beautiful landscape but
instead photographed and printed it out, but at the cost of its uniqueness.
![]() |
Figure 2 - "Newspaper printing press"; an example of one of the first printing presses that made reproduction so much faster and easier http://scm.ulster.ac.uk/~B00643919/des/image2.png |
With industrialization,
the understanding of art became diluted in the sense that the public was
presented with an outburst of artworks that no longer felt unique. While an
essay known as the Oxford Photography
History compliments industrialization for allowing “the extraordinary to be
seen in the commonplace”, Walter Benjamin argues that only by being at the site
of the landscape can one truly feel and understand the aura (Oxford Photography History). However,
with the increased availability of photographs, the urge of the public to see
such landscapes are satiated by simple reproductions. The understanding of art
is thus diminished; as Benjamin claims “that which withers in the age of mechanical
reproducibility is the aura of the work of art” (Work of Art in the Age of Reproducibility 1).
Citations
Citations
Hi Matthew,
ReplyDeleteIt completely slipped my mind that the reproduction of art could be linked to the creation and widespread use of the printing press. It is interesting that reproduction of art can lead to a double-edged sword of sorts: on the one hand, we have increased visibility for works of art that would've otherwise been unheard of, and on the other, we have a loss of originality. This same dilemma translates over now into our internet age, where reproductions or different renditions of the same piece of art can be found in a million different ways. It poses a question of which is more important-- longevity or originality? Just some food for thought.
Best,
Brenda