Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit

May 27, 2012 § Leave a comment

BENJAMIN (Walter). Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 1936

Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, 1996, edition Suhrkamp

Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, 2006, edition Suhrkamp

Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, 2007, edition Suhrkamp

Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, 2010, edition Suhrkamp

L’oeuvre d’art à l’époque de sa reproductibilité technique, 2007, Edition Allia

L’oeuvre d’art à l’époque de sa reproductibilité technique, 2008, Folioplus

L’oeuvre d’art à l’époque de sa reproductibilité technique, 2008, Folioplus

L’oeuvre d’art à l’époque de sa reproductibilité technique, 2012, Edition Allia

http://www.hypermedia.univ-paris8.fr/Groupe/documents/Benjamin/Ben3.html#ref

The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, 2008, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, 2010, CreatSpace

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

http://design.wishiewashie.com/HT5/WalterBenjaminTheWorkofArt.pdf

The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction, 1999, Penguin

기술복제시대의 예술작품, 2007, 길

Art after Philosophy

March 18, 2011 § Leave a comment

Joseph Kosuth, “Art after Philosophy” In Art after Philosophy and After; Collected writing, 1966-1990. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991

With the unassisted Ready-made, art changed its focus from the form of the language to what was being said. Which means that it changed the nature of art from a question of morphology to a question of function. This change – one from “appearance” to “conception” – was the beginning of “modern” art and the beginning of conceptual art. All art (after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature) because art only exists conceptually.

Artists question the nature of art by presenting new propositions as to art’s nature. – p18

As far as art is concerned Van Gogh’s paintings aren’t worth any more than his palette is. (…)  Art “lives” through influencing other art, not by existing as the physical residue of an artist’s ideas. – p19

That the language forms that the artist frames his propositions in are often “private” codes or languages is an inevitable outcome of art’s freedom from morphological constrictions; and it follows from this that one has to be familiar with contemporary art to appreciate it and understand it. – p20

We see now that the axioms of a geometry are simply definitions, and that the theorems of a geometry are simply the logical consequences of these definitions. A geometry is not in itself about physical space; in itself it cannot be said to be “about” anything. But we can use a geometry to reason about physical space. That is to say, once we have given the axioms a physical interpretation, we can proceed to apply the theorems to the objects which satisfy the axioms. Whether a geometry can be applied to the actual physical world or not, is an empirical question which falls outside the scope of geometry itself. There is no sense, therefore, in asking which of the various geometries known to us are false and which are true. Insofar as they are all free from contradiction, they are all true. The proposition which states that a certain application of a geometry is possible is not itself a proposition of that geometry. All that the geometry itself tells us is that if anything can be brought under the definitions, it will also satisfy the theorems. It is therefore a purely logical system, and its propositions are purely analytic propositions. –A. J. Ayer*

        *   Language, Truth, and Logic. New York : Dover Publications, 1952, p. 82.

Here then I propose rests the viability of art. In an age when traditional philosophy is unreal because of its assumptions, art’s ability to exist will depend not only on its not performing a service – as entertainment, visual (or other) experience, or decoration – which is something easily replaced by kitsch culture, and technology, but, rather, it will remain viable by not assuming a philosophical stance; for in art’s unique character is the capacity to remain aloof from philosophical judgments. It is in this context that art shares similarities with logic, mathematics, and, as well, science. But whereas the other endeavors are useful, art is not. Art indeed exists for its own sake. (…) Art is the definition of art.  – p24

 

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with art at sunkyung oh.