Reading Response- Reading On

I did not have much of a hard time reading Hovagimyan’s article because I remember reading about similar ideas in another class. I agree that once an art is reproduced it changes in oneway or another. Even when printing a photograph that was found on the internet- the picture quality will be different, the lighting might change, and the photo might get stretched. The idea of preserving art by reproducing does also change the art. I found interesting that Hovagimyan says that the “symbolic language from paintings doesn’t compare with the information”. Photography is said to capture the moment, but capturing a moment is very difficult in one shot especially because it could be manipulated through lighting and even in videos, the message can be manipulated.

What I found even more intriguing was the definition of post media era stating that generative art is ever changing. I believe all art is ever changing after we moved from painting as the primary method of capturing a moment. But, I do agree that art is ever changing. I chose to look up one of the words the author used; mimesis, on google images and one of the images caught my eye. This image, “Mimetic”, captures the idea of the article and is a great example of the definition I found, “fool the eye”; where one cannot tell the difference between the real and reproduced. When looking at this image I do not know what image was first, the one of the roman statues or the female. I have a feeling it was the roman statues, but I might be wrong. It also seems like two different paintings were put together by some digital means, or perhaps it is a painting.