A work of art has always been reproducible or imitated by men, however, newness came from mechanical reproduction. Historically the Greeks knew two procedures; founding and stamping whereby they were able to reproduce works of art. Graphic art became mechanically reproducible long before script became reproducible by print. Engraving and etching brought along lithography which was surpassed by photography. Photography therefore freed the hand of the most important artistic functions and henceforth used the eye. Pictorial reproduction was accelerated since the eye perceived more swiftly than the hand can draw. The most perfect reproduction of a work of art lacked the presence of time and space, the history to which it was subject to throughout the time of its existence. The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity. The process of reproducing the object is more independent of it than the manual reproduction. The process can bring out those aspects that are unattainable to the naked eye in the finished work, example the use of enlargements or slow motion can capture images that would escape natural vision.
The “aura” of the work of art is lost in mechanical reproduction. The unique existence and the intimacy that the artist has with the piece is lost with reproduction. It is said that the object is pried from its shell; its aura is destroyed. Earlier, artwork came about in the service of a ritual; first the magical then the religious kind. The aura was never entirely separated from its ritual functions; the authentic work had its basis in rituals. The work was not in existence for show but was only to be exposed to or meant for spirits. Mechanical reproduction therefore emancipated the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual or cult. Photography began to displace cult value but it also recorded it by becoming the standard evidence for historical occurrences. Photography also became a rival to painting as it forced artist to look to impressionism and abstraction instead of realism.
As film came along, an actor’s performance was presented by means of a camera and he lacked the opportunity of the stage actor to adjust to the audience during performance. The audience become critics without personal contact but via the camera. The aura of the actor vanishes and the aura the figure plays replaces it. The comparison of a cameraman and a painter is said to be that the painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality and the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web.
With the increasing extension of the press anyone is able to publish written material and at any moment a reader is ready to turn into a writer. The greater the decrease in the social significance of an art from the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. Painting is said to be in no position to present an object for simultaneous collective experience although they began to be publicly exhibited in galleries and salons.
In my opinion, there is always going to be mechanical reproduction or imitation of original art pieces, but the importance is the process by which one gets there and the personal spin that is placed on the finished piece. One of the most amazing pieces I have seen are those that are mixed up with the traditional techniques and the processes that came along with mechanical reproduction over the years.
