Decacia

There was a certain epicness that came with the movie. Although the movie's music clashed so much, and made my head hurt because it didn't make sense, it just added to the overall result. It was amazing how the movie portrayed simple, everyday events--children in a school yard, a woman weaving yarn, a woman giving birth--but because of the decay, it was so horrifying. It destroyed what we just see as an event, into something horrific. It's like, some sort of mockery of the everyday, but pushed to the extreme. And, also, it was slowed down, so that the decay was moving at the pace of what a movie would be, while the subject seemed to take five minutes to walk three meters. Overall, I enjoyed the movie a lot.

Walter Benjamin Piece

This man is so full of shit. I will begin with the first major mistake: connecting his article with Marx's Communism. Marx in his philosophy specifically stated that art needed to be controlled. By having art, there would be a mass spread of ideas that would eventually result in some sort of hierarchy of ideas. It was controlled in Soviet Union; it is controlled in North Korea. Although, I must give Benjamen some credit: the way he bashed art and sounded like an arrogance ass worked well with the reference to Marx.

Now, the the rest of the article: I will first start with where the author was correct before he dove off the edge. Painting and mass-produced art--ie, lithographs, etchings, casted bronzed, photography--brought some controversy to what art is. By mass-producing art, it become more available to the masses. With the invention--or discover--of photography, art was able to become so much more "in the moment" and spontaneous. It allowed for more in depth examination of the subject because everything was brought out; there was--usually--no hiding with photography.

Now, where he went wrong: in section seven, Benjamin has the analogy of the doctor--photographer--and the magician--the painter. Photography allows one to step aside and have a more real experience while painting is more natural and "fake." In actuality, painting is a more realistic form of art than photography. As real and unforgiving photography is, painting allows for the introduction of indirect emotion, feeling, that painter's touch. Now, granted, I may be a painter which is why I think this article is full of stinking bullshit, but I'm also a photographer, so I do see both sides. However, there is no need to bash one type of art and make it out that the fact that photography is, in fact, an unforgiving bitch, and painting allows one to interpret the subject. Interpretation allows for a more real experience and dipiction of the subject than photo. Photo is dry and straightforward. Painting is expressive.

His second big flaw comes earlier in the article where he talks about how "fine art," once out of its time context, is meaningless or holds no original. Just because a photograph is the real thing, doesn't mean it doesn't lose any of its original meaning. A formal family portrait from the nineteen century was once documentation; now, it's history, a learning tool, a piece of old-timey art. A Madonna statue from the Middle Ages was both artistic and religious. It is still artistic and religious.

I understand this article is from the nineteen thirties, and if Walter Benjamin lived in the modern era and was introduced to modern digital photography, he probably would cream himself, but art is still evolving. Traditional painting is becoming more photo-realistic; digital painting has been introduced and allows for the similar pieces of art to be mass produced; photography, nowadays, can hold millions and trillions more details than older camera and older film. However, they are all art. They all fade with time; they all lose their meaning in context with when they were created; they all evolve in importance and likability.