When a work of art turns out to be not from what it claims to
be it devalues historically but should it devalue at the same time aesthetically
. Suddenly the painting becomes less appealing to a human eye ? Technically it
shouldn’t but there has been instances in history as well as in current times
when the outlook about that particular piece of art in public changed
dramatically and it got removed from the
museum wall .The reason to begin with could be the wrong attribution of artist
by mistake or forgery but fundamentally the real aesthetic value of work should
and it does remain intact .The general popular belief also is that it should
make no aesthetic difference whether a work of art is forged copied or original,
although for some the line gets drawn at forged for moral reasons.
Work of art as intended human performance ,in order to understand
that one must have information about the content of its production .One has to
place it within a tradition. Also there exists the technological reproduction
of art, the technical capacity to bring out the aspects which cannot be
perceived in the original(enlargements, slow motion and so forth). The original
keeps its authority over the manual copy though.
The issues of original, copies and fakes continue to
fascinate even today. In 2010 National Gallery in London staged an exhibition
detailing the scientific way to investigate the original panting by a
scientific method called FTIR but the exhibition failed to explain the link why
it was so important to identify the art as original for the artists itself.
Exploring Photography one must say that the illusion between
photography and reality is far from simple.Photography from its infancy brought
together people, places and events of the world, for instance war before invention
of pictures sounded very glamorous until the real photographs of war scenes
came into being and people realized for real and visually in its complete starkness
the horrors and atrocities of war.
Photgraphy wasn’t only concerned with the wonder and
celebrity, it also documented the social condition around the world which
eventually and with the course of time visually accounted for social change. The
mechanical authenticity of photography has become obvious with time yet in a
famous and controversial claim Scruton says that Photography should not be regarded
as a medium of art ,it is regarded as somewhat something very easy by him .
According to this argument Photography simply produces what’s already in front
of us in the nature and real world it only reproduces and it cannot transcend
its subject matter. William King however eloquently negated it by saying that
when one looks at a photograph be it your Parent’s wedding pictures or last year’s
trip with friends it invokes memories and it holds much more than the subject
matter itself. This in turn means that the photograph is more than a surrogate
for a subject matter it is the result of photographer’s intention ,a notion
does not make sense in Scruton’s views.
No comments:
Post a Comment