Hovagimyan Response

The "Post Media" concept is an interesting idea, which I enjoyed reading about....in the very last sentence of the entire article. I didn't really appreciate Hovagimayan's scattered process in explaining what it means to be in a Post Media society. He went from painting, to photography, to movies, to television, to the telegraph, to the radio. There was no coherent order in my opinion that helped me to better understand this concept. And the only concept that he truly elaborated on was when he gave an anecdote of Alexander Bell accidentally inventing the telephone... and then he was off to talking about the tape recorder. I would like however, to talk about the few ideas within the article that sparked some reflection within me.

The first is the idea that "art loses that numistic aura when it is reproduced." The author interprets this to meaning that art is in the category of language as well. But there is more to this thought that I think went unexplored. If it means that art has a sort of a spiritual presence for the viewer, and reproduction lessens this presence, then in this 21st century we would have no art. We reproduce absolutely everything. I believe that this though can speak on what critics thought art to mean maybe a century ago. However, if art is in fact a language then we are able to communicate even farther the idea of art and it's spiritual qualities then we were before. Thus, making art more effective in today's society. I think that an issue is the art world (besides film) has not fully capitalized on the broadcasting quality of today's technology. Perhaps they do not do this because they are afraid of losing the authenticity and sort of exclusivity of art - which I think the author is more so referring to.

The second idea that I would like to talk about is the idea of mimesis, "notion of reproducing reality so completely that one can't tell the difference between real and recorded..." He goes on to talk about how film has an ability to do this in today's society. I think that he his mollifying the ability of film and all other art to take the viewer to a place that is in fact not reality. Last week in class, I especially enjoyed a comment that Whitney made when she told us that art is not real. What is the purpose then in focusing on how certain qualities of art try to mimic reality? I don't even think they did that before the 21st century, before this "Post Media" environment. Picasso painted a woman that looked nothing like a woman, Van Gough cut off his ear to make an unrealistic statement, and Michaelangelo made God "almost" touch man. Granted, these references are outside of the US, but these are some of the greatest influences on all art. Furthermore, he doesn't reference how recording devices such as radio or the telegraph influenced are technological culture to what it is today.

I may not truly understand the point that Hovagimyan is attempting to make, but from what I read, I am not convinced. The ultimate Post Media society that he is now referring to though, is an interesting concept in that our technology is now becoming an extension of our human lives. What I included in my post is what I interpret that to mean... iPhone art as the next new artistic medium?

http://www.artfulvagabond.com/iphone-art-the-next-new-artistic-medium-day-137/