Week 3 Response to article

Has mechanical reproduction changed the way we view arts authenticity as well as the value we place on the original?

I think mechanical reproduction has changed the way we view the value of an art piece, but I don't know if the actual authenticity has been changed. It's important to recognize what the difference between replication and reproduction are when considering the question.

Reproduce-produce again; create something very similar to

Replicate-Make an exact copy of
definitions from Webster's Dictionary

When considering a piece or art, there is more to it than the material existence. The history of the object, pre and post creation also define it's existence. To replicate an object would be to create an exact copy. But is that even possible? By making a copy you define a new creation history, which creates a reproduction instead.

So replication is impossible, but what does reproduction do? When examining a reproduction, there seems to be a less important value placed on it. It may stem from psychology and a person's sense of self. Everyone wants to be different and unique. But when you create thousands of objects that physically look identical, there is nothing special about that in the traditional sense. The initial pice of work was forged from emotion/inspiration/etc but the reproduction came from something different. Maybe that something was wholesome, like admiration, or maybe it came from greed.

I don't think the creation of reproductions has changed our value of art. If anything it has just drawn a line in the sand. Original pieces are cherished, much the same they were before the age of reproductions. The only difference is that reproduction pieces can also be valued, but not in the same way. That's not to say that reproductions don't have their place, but they weren't created with the same intention/emotion as the original, so their impact on the audience can not have the same impact.