A Response to Walter Benjamin

 

Picture of website

SNIPPPPPED

 

 

And my code:

My html:

<DOCTYPE! html>
<html>
<head>
<title> Interaction Lab 1</title>
<link rel=”stylesheet” href = “style.css”/>

<body>
<center>
<h1 id=”head1″>The Evolution of Art</h1>
<img id=”movie” src=”https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/grand-budapest.jpg” alt=”movie still of the movie, the grand budapest hotel” width=”800″ height=”533″>
</center>
<p id=”paragraph1″>The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction provided many insights to the evolution of the purpose of art in western media. Although it provided insights on how art can be seen as distracting or immersive, I find Walter’s work to be severely outdated when put in relation to contemporary thought on the art of filmmaking and photography.
Another issue is that the problem isn’t with the introduction of photography and filmmakking into the artworld, it’s a problem with society moving towards rapid and fast paced consumption of art in a consumerist sense.</p>

<p2 id=”paragraph2″>In my own opinion I find the argument in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction to be severely flawed when placed in the context of modern photography and filmmaking. There is time to concentrate on a film or photograph, and to start to become completely immersed in the process. Fine-art photography and digital manipulation have come to show that photographs can reveal hidden depth or show more depth than originally thought. The message of seeing beyond the frame is often used in the context of BOTH photography and traditional painting. As for film, the contemporary film maker(depdending on the style) like to use setting shows to establish the background of the story or to show the wonderful cinematography that is produced nowadays. The author states that these forms of art are tyrannical in nature, meaning that they force us to only view what the artist wants us to view, but I argue that with concentration, contemplation and reflection there can be much more meaning found beyond the frame, especially in terms of modern filmmaking and photography. </p2>

</body>

</html>

CSS:

#paragraph1{background-color: transparent; text-align: left;}
#paragraph2{background-color: transparent; text-align: left;}
#head1{text-align: center; color:#0E3947;}
body{background-image: url(“http://p1.pichost.me/i/56/1792614.jpg”);
background-repeat:no-repeat; background-attachment: fixed;}

Response to Walter Benjamin

I focused on Benjamin’s use of the aura- particularly the way reproduction by means of photography deprives the viewer of the aura. I found a really cool gif on Giphy and added in a song from Spotify that I felt personified the apocalyptic tone. I was able to figure out how to resize my image, center the div box and the text within it, as well as arrange the elements in the order I wanted, but I wasn’t able to center the image or the music player, even though I tried like 50 different ways. I also would have preferred to use the html5 audio player as opposed to the gross-looking Spotify extension, but I don’t actually have the .mp3 file for this song saved on my computer so this will have to do.

Screen Shot 2015-02-03 at 9.32.00 AM

 

HTML Code:

<!DOCTYP html>
<html>
<head>
<title>the loss of an aura<</title>
<link rel=”stylesheet” href=”style.css” />
</head>
<body>
<h1><i>the loss of an aura </i></h1>
<p2><img src=file:///Users/isabellabaranyk/Desktop/giphy.gif align=”middle” width=”780″ height=”470″/></p2>
<div style=”background-color:teal; color:black; margin:20px; padding:20px; text-align:center”>
<p1> <id=”lalala” class=”foo”> “Who sees the human face correctly: the photographer, the mirror, or the painter?” -Picasso </p1>
</body>
</div>

<iframe src=”https://embed.spotify.com/?uri=spotify:track:2yJVk6jfa2xAEqVb2qDFgn” allowtransparency=”true” ></iframe>
</html>

CSS code:

h1 {
font-size: 500%;
text-align: center;
color: black;
}
#lalala {
color: teal;
font-size: 350%;
}

.foo {
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
text-align: center;
width: 70%;
}

#gif {
vertical-align=”middle”;

}

Nick’s Walter Benjamin Response

Pictures of my website

Screen Shot 2015-02-03 at 9.31.28 AM Screen Shot 2015-02-03 at 9.31.20 AM

Here is my code.

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang=”en-US”>
<head>
<meta charset=”utf-8″>
<title>Nick’s Review of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”</title>
<style>
p {
text-indent: 50px;
}
</style>
</head>

<body style=”background-color:#FFC266″>

<h1 style=”text-align:center”>Welcome to the page dedicated to Nicholas Sanchez’s interpretation of Walter Benjamin’s work</h1>

<img src=”http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/graphics/photos/camera.gif” width=”300″ height=”300″>

<p>Let us first consider art’s meaning. The etymology of the word art comes from artificial, which means man-made. Artificial likewise comes from the Latin word “artificium”, or “handicraft”. The significance of this minor history lesson is that, by understanding the word artificial, we develop a better intuition into the meaning of art and artificial productions. That is to say, art, machines, technology, crafts, and etc., are all “artificium”, or made by the hand of man. This is a universal and key element to understanding all forms of art.</p>

<p style=”font-family:verdana;font-size:200%;text-align:center”>Perception</p>

<p>Art and reduplicating nature is all about Perception. An interesting note Benjamin makes is that of the senses, the ability to see, feel, and smell, all are utilized when humans perceive and replicate artificium. The significance: As technology has advanced, so too has man’s capacity to replicate and create the artificial, as only through technology could this imitation be achieved. As Benjamin states, there is a degree of detachment that accompanies all works of art, for they merely signify the real thing imitated or reality. Hence, every time art is reproduced, it loses more of its “unique existence” and “aura”. It “loses its very essence,” and thus as the degree to which that piece and the actual reality are situated grows larger, the piece’s aura decreases.</p>

<p style=”font-family:verdana;font-size:200%;text-align:center”>The differences between traditional art and “art in the age of mechanical reproduction”</p>

<p>In terms of this work, the making of art via mechanical, artificial and man-made constructions is meant to depict the use of camera to create a photograph or film. For purists, these new mediums are not truly art. However, because such methods are in their infancy yet, the debate continues on. </p>

<p>Why should such mediums be considered art in the first place? A photo is art because it is an artificial reproduction of something real. Furthermore, the photographer is an artist for he has an intention and a bias, which is presented in the photo, and adds the human element to the photograph. Thus, like ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs (if not all visual arts), photographs contain rich semiotic identities. Filmed performances, likewise, are artistic pieces consisting of the actors, who create their own art, coupled with the cameraman’s art, which is to decide angles, adjust light, and ultimately determine what is to be perceived by audiences.</p>

<p>And though Benjamin is undeniably correct when he argues that mechanical reproduction is the only way that recreation can become separated from the “traditional art”, and mechanically produced art is consequently subjected to politics. However, he unfairly condemns the movie industry for its greed, implying that the greedy intentions that incited the film somehow decrease it’s stature as a legitimate art form. This is unfair, as historically all “legitimate” and “true” pieces of art have been created only when wealthy elites had been willing to commission it. In other words, art shouldn’t be judged based upon the financial desires surrounding the pieces conception, for then most of the Western world’s concept of art would be made illegitimate.</p>

<p style=”font-family:verdana;font-size:200%;text-align:center”>Issues</p>

<p>First, producing art is always done via mechanical means for the tools (such as the media brushes, a chisel, clay) used to create “traditional” art are also mechanical. Thus, although there is a difference between arts produced by a brush versus a camera, both are ultimately a person using an artificial medium to create a piece of art. </p>

<p>Second, I disagree with his subtext that the using a camera to create a picture or film lacks perception, meaning, skill, or influence, and is thus not an inferior art as the texts suggests*. Consider for the first time in history the commercial availability to create art via camera has allowed for the art-experiencing community to broaden. In the past, only the wealthy or educated elite could experience and define “fine art”, and thus the art community was concentrated. As now anyone can participate in the art discussion (most people can buy cameras, produce art, and partake in the experience of said art), the former elite community clings to its former status by arguing that such media are not legitimate. This speaks to Benjamin’s comparisons between fascism and communism.</p>

<p>Moreover, I specifically take issue with the idea that people who attend movies are not experiencing art, but rather mindlessly participating in a distraction. In the last century, film has indeed created some of the most influential and successful artworks available to man. If anything, film is a superior art form to that of fine art for it has the availability to be experienced by all, whereas a painting really cannot. Just because anyone can now do it does not diminish its creative value. And Movies do indeed have a cult-value.</p>

<img src=”http://d12vb6dvkz909q.cloudfront.net/uploads/galleries/249/the_rocky_horror_picture_show_poster.jpg” width=”300″ height=”300″”>

<p>Ultimately, I find that although traditional arts are so fervently segregated, they and mechanically produced art are not so different. After all, both are narratives, as the artist behind the medium (mechanical or not) has intention and imbues their piece with their own biases and both are narratives, and meant to tell a story. Both truly can be appreciated as art and creative expression, and are simultaneously the products of financial investment. Thus, at least from a practical perspective, the two variations truly are the same.</p>

<p2> <small> <i>*Benjamin argues that the photography and film lack aura, which is to say both merely create an intriguing spectacle. In away, the debate between film and photography versus modern art is indeed the debate between spectacle and aura, and perhaps even the masses versus the elite. One key difference explicitly belong to art produced via camera thus is that it has the ability to reach the masses.</i> </small></p>

</body>

</html>

Response to Walter Benjamin – Jinyu

Did lots of search on making the background colors gradient!

Enjoy :E
jinyuss01 jinyuss02

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>

<head>
  <title>
    Arua of Art | Response to "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"
  </title>
  <style type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
    .test1{
    width: 100%;
    height: 100%;
    text-align: left;
    line-height: 20px;
    margin-bottom: 400px;
    color: White;
    font-size: 15px;
    background: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, from(#0066CC), color-stop(30%, #ff77ff), color-stop(50%, #ffd2d2), color-stop(75%, #ffff37), to(#ff8000));
}
  </style>
</head>

<div class="test1">
<body>
  <br>
  <h1 style="font-family:Synchro LET" align="middle">Arua of Art</h1>
  <hr />
  <p style="font-family:Monaco">
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After going into the age of mechanical reproduction, CD largely takes place of live shows as an efficient way to spread pieces of music to every corner of the world with an uncompetably fast speed. Unless I am so obsessed with this singer, I seldom go to a live show due to the price and my laziness. Instead, I will choose to watch videos or listen to music. The effect can almost compare with that of a live show if provided with an outstanding acoustics.
  </p>
  <div align=center><img src="/Users/Jhyuiccen/Desktop/467.png" width="500" height="500"></div>
  <p style="font-family:Monaco">
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Walter Benjamin says that the <em>aura</em> of art is decaying, and changes in the medium of contemporary perception exactly reveal that trend. It reminds of a show I saw in an art museum in the New Year's eve this year. It was a live show presented by a local electronic music band, combined with the application of electronic imaging and media art. The central auditorium is surrounded by 3 layers of semi-opaque yarn-like curtains. The band is right behind the curtain. We could only see the blurry black figures of them. Abstract imaging were projected on the curtains and contentiously changed with the beat. These imaging, just as movies, can be reproduced and are not unique. A live show is just the opposite of these digital media. Being different from the music played by speakers, a live show introduces "live" singers/bands to the theater and gives audience a unique sense of presence. But what makes it interesting is the unique sense of presence is weakened because of the semi-opaque curtain set between audience and the band. It not only cuts the communication between them, and it even further increases the natural distances between them. The subtle feeling brought out by the near-and-far distance may be something sparkling of this show.
  </p>
  <p style="font-family:Monaco">
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So will the live show die in the age of mechanical reproduction? Will the aura of art disappear? I do not think so. Instead, it will become more vital. It will be innovative while keeping its core spirit and being presented with another new look.
  </p>
</body>
</div>

</html>

Response to “Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” – Billy

Here’s the website that I made for this particular complex reading: (I know there are few grammatical mistakes here)

Billy

 

And here’s the code:

<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<html>
<head>
<title>
“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” Response
</title>
</head>
<link rel= “stylesheet” href=”StyleA2.css”/>

<body>
<font face=”Arial” color=”white”>

<h1>From the Mechanical To The Virtual</h1>
<p class=”quote”> “In principle a work of art has always been reproducible.” – Walter Benjamin </p>
<p class=”pic”> <img src= “http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/minitext/escher/drawing_hands.gif” alt=”Reproduction of Art” /> </p>

<div class= “texting”>
<p> Photography extends from the painting, while the film extends from the photography. However, the extension of the film that relates with an event or movie is wrapped further by the invention of virtual storage and communication. </p>
<p> In this contemporary era, the wonders of technology have pushed us further into the reproduction of art through virtual means. The storage disk, the USB, the hard drive, RAM, and other means of preservation can easily copy and reproduce documents, artworks, films, photography, images, and recently objects with unparalleled precision. Indeed, complementary technological devices, such as the cameras and printers, are still needed to aid with the reproduction of any work of art from the virtual realm to the physical (as well as inversely). </p>
<p> However, from all these technological advances, what distinguished the availability of reproducing art as a visual form for a humungous audience is the world wide web. The virtual space of the internet allows us to search for any piece of art, sculpture, or film conveniently through a computer; however, the downside is that the physical experience is vastly differentiated than the experience of the actual piece of work. Watching a film in a movie theater or touching a sculpture possesses different experiences than doing these actions on a device. </p>
<p> Nevertheless, the early times of the internet had a different <a href=”http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/04/h-bomb-and-the-internet”> purpose </a> — the advances we made today stemmed from the necessary measures of war. </p>
</div>
<p class=”pic”>
<img style=”height:auto; width:700px;” src=”http://news.art.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nick-Rivers.gif” alt=”Nope” />
</p>
</font>

</body>
</html>

For the Visuals:

body {
background-image: url(“http://backgroundhdwallpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Cool-Backgrounds-Background-HD-Wallpaper.jpg”);
background-repeat: repeat-y;
background-attachment: fixed;
}
h1 {
color: #9c9c9c;
text-align: center;
}

.quote{
text-align: center;
font-style: italic;
font-size: 18px;
}

.pic{
text-align: center;
}

a:link{
color: #4493ff;
}

a:visited{
color: #f044ff;
}

div.texting{
margin: 20px;
background-color:#ffffff;
border: 2px solid white;
opacity: 0.5;
filter: alpha(opacity=50);
}
div.texting p{
margin: 1%;
font-weight:normal;
color:#000000;
}

Responding to Walter Benjamin

file://localhost/Users/chloehaddaway/Desktop/web/webpage1/page1.html

After the lab on Friday with Professor Belanger, I had learned the basics of making an html webpage. To start on my own webpage, I copied the basic components from the example page I did in class into a new document. I then went onto the site that Professor Belanger referred us to to learn how to add different text fonts. I chose a typewriter font and chose a title for the page. I then wrote out my response in a pages document and planned out what else I wanted the page to include, like a photo and links. I then referred back to w3schools to learn how to add borders to blocks of text. I then went back and added in the photo and links and added the different fonts and borders!

 

Response to “the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction”

This is my website screenshot. I add more elements from w3school.

Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 2.25.46 PM Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 2.26.14 PM

 

Here is my html code:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Response to “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”</title>
<link rel=”stylesheet” href=”style.css” />
</head>
<body>
<h1>Arts Revolution</h1>
<img src=”http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/a/images/art_word.painted.3d.JPG”/>
<!– comment !–>
<p>The cost of mechanical art reproduction’s appearance is the lost of art’s “aura”.
<a href=””></a></p>
<p>REASON: Namely, the desire of contemporary masses to bring things “closer” spatially
and humanly, which is just as ardent as their <br>bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of
every reality by accepting its reproduction. Every day the urge grows stronger to get
hold of <br>an object at very close range by way of its likeness, its reproduction (III).</p>
<p>The real challenge to traditional art—-<a href=”http://www.whatinfo.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/headshot-photography.jpg” id=”photography”>
photography</a></p>
<p>Photography’s Historic Meaning to Arts: The first time in world history,
mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of <br>art from its parasitical dependence
on ritual. To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of
art <br>designed for reproducibility(IV).</p>
<h2>Movie</h2>
<img class=”ex1″ src=”http://091labs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/movie_night.gif”/>
<p>Combine photography’s art value and science value into one. <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_film” id=”filmphotography”>
film photography</a></p>
<p class=”ex2″>Negative Voice to Film: a pastime for helots, a diversion for uneducated, wretched,
worn-out creatures who are consumed by their <br>worries a spectacle which requires no concentration
and presupposes no intelligence which kindles no light in the heart and awakens <br>no hope other than
the ridiculous one of someday becoming a star in Los Angeles(XV Duhamel).</p>
<p class=”ex3″>Benjamin’s Voice to Film: Film’s art value does exist, just like architecture arts.
Architecture has always represented the prototype of a work<br> of art the reception of which
is consummated by a collectivity in a state of distraction. Same to film, people treat films as
pastime so<br> they don’t have to concentrate on them which buries film’s art value.</p>
<img class=”ex2″ src=”http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k3B0flnGj_I/UzQ1ugCwnJI/AAAAAAAABZs/tC8RX5zz3mo/s1600/Bond-film.gif”>

<h3>Copy in Movie</h3>

<img class=”ex3″ src=”http://hkxforce.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Paprika_Inception.jpg”>
<p><a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh1sU6isRao”>Paprika vs Inception</p>

<address>
Written by Luke Xia.<br>
Email me via: <br>
lx373@nyu.edu
</address>

</body>
</html>

And css code:

body {
background-image: url(“http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090701214431/alphaprotocol/images/3/3a/Notebook_paper.gif”);
}
h1 {
color: green;
text-align: center;
}
h2 {
color: green;
text-align: center;
}
h3 {
color: green;
text-align: center;
}
p {
margin-left: 100px;
}
p.ex2 {
margin-top: 2cm;
}
p.ex3 {
margin-top: 2cm;
}

#photography{
color: blue;
}

#filmphtography{
color: blue;
}

img {
margin-left: 720px;
}

img.ex1 {
margin-left: 630px;
}

img.ex2 {
margin-left: 100px;
}
img.ex3 {
margin-left: 50px;
}