Today's discussion proved to be, as usual, a clarification of the readings we were assigned. It seems as though no matter what I am thinking while I am reading the "works" I am always way off in my interpretations. However, today's discussion of the "aura" Benjamin speaks of in "The Work of Art and Age of Mechanical Reproduction" seems to have a less solidified representation, so I figured I would take another stab at it.
The way that I think of the "aura" of original works or paintings is similar to class the class in that, whatever this aura is, it cannot be reproduced. That being said, I believe the aura to be for instance, the specific brush strokes or minute details of a painter and his/her painting. Their thoughts at that moment they are painting can never be reproduced, and although there may be a well-known meaning behind a painting, there is something about the original that draws a person in. This draw is something that a reproduction lacks. Perhaps this is also the reason that books (at least in my opinion) are always better than the movies based on them. For example, one of my favorite movies is "The Notebook" (and of course I had to add the most famous photo from the movie.) 
I saw the movie before reading the book, and I think this was a good thing in this case. When I read the book, and cried even harder than when I watched the movie; if I would have read the book first, I would not have wanted to see the movie in fear of ruining my perceptions of the story. There is just something about reading books word for word, creating a mental image, finding a real attachment to the characters and plot line that movies based on these books lack.
I saw the movie before reading the book, and I think this was a good thing in this case. When I read the book, and cried even harder than when I watched the movie; if I would have read the book first, I would not have wanted to see the movie in fear of ruining my perceptions of the story. There is just something about reading books word for word, creating a mental image, finding a real attachment to the characters and plot line that movies based on these books lack.So I imagine the essence of the aura, for me, can be summed up as simply the feeling in your chest when you see an original painting, or read an amazing book, or perhaps the goosebumps on your arms when you see something truly touching. I don't know about you, but I love this feeling.
3 comments:
I think there really is something to the concept of aura. In terms of paintings, it's everything from the frame around it to the texture of the paint close-up. You sort of begin to realize as you look at it that someone spent hours or maybe years to get to that work. A reproduction loses a lot of that feel.
Another example readily coming to mind is any ordinary old book. When you read a reprint of a book you don't really consider it for anything except the letters on the page. However there is much more to it. If you go to Memorial Union (and probably some of the other libraries) you can find books pre-dating 1850. Holding those leatherbound works in your hands seems to hold a certain power that a fresh copy from Penguin cannot. There's everything from the original construction of the title to the layout of the pages. For me aura is a connection with the past.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that either. Of course if there were no mechanical reproduction most of us would never be privy to the experience of the finer arts. However there is certainly something to be said for being in close contact with the original.
Haha, I feel the same way about the whole movie/book thing. Having your favorite books tarnished by Hollywood is SO traumatizing! But... If I see the movie first and THEN read the book it usually just makes me appreciate the work more and provides more depth.
first off, i'd like to state that whatever initial interpretation you had of auras from the readings was probably just as good as your latter established interpretation, because i feel when you read someone else's work, there is no right or wrong to how you perceive it. i do agree with you on the appreciation of an original piece of work. one cannot see the brush strokes, the texture, or the intentions/emotions of a duplicate painting. these can only be gained from the original.
Post a Comment