Jack Scardino - "On Media"

Havagimyan has an interesting perspective.  One argument that caught my attention was in opposition to Walter Benjamin’s view that art loses some value and impact when reproduced.  I think Havagimyan is absolutely correct about art being a communication process, and that the meaning derives from that process between artist and audience.  It often rides on cultural assumptions and shared emotions to non-verbally make statements that have emotional impact.  Familiarity with an image, the kind of familiarity that 20^th Century mass production has allowed, can drive an artistic insight into an audience in a way one-of-a-kind works cannot.  Photos that have circulated in textbooks around the world (at least, in the U.S.) are so powerful because they are shared so widely, such as the Vietnamese girl burned by napalm, the Times Square VJ-Day kiss in 1945, and “The Blue Marble” picture of the Earth I believe do all they originally did and more now.  Recorded music works in a very similar way, perhaps in a more powerful way.  However, I will also agree with Benjamin that in some circumstances, art can be devalued because of mass-production.  One can become desensitized to a work and its meaning from over-seeing it.

I think of Star Wars when I think about this argument.  Or Bruce Springsteen’s “Born to Run”.  I couldn’t count the number of times, couldn’t even guess, I’ve revisited those works.  (Incidentally, I maintained a streak listening to “Born to Run” every day for nearly two consecutive years.)  I still watch those movies and listen to that song regularly.  In some ways the magic of seeing Star Wars for the first time has worn off, and surely the gravity of Empire’s big reveal at the end doesn’t carry quite the same impact it did when I first learned it.  Benjamin is onto something there.  But in other ways, I have come to appreciate more about these two works in particular because I know so much about them.  I can reapproach them on a technical level, or even attempt to let my imagination seep into the context of the art.  With “Born to Run”, I do still consistently feel the power and spirit in the music, and I experience that on a level much deeper than my first time listening.  I mean it when I sing it.  Maybe that comes from my own maturity, but I believe it comes from the collective understanding of my previous experiences with the song as well.

Finally, this leads me to note some of Havagimyan’s final thoughts.  I do not totally accept that “we are moving away from ‘Playback Culture’”.  First of all, I am already weary of hearing the words “pre” and “post” slapped onto the names of different genres.  But I also know that there are in fact masters and subsequent copies used today to produce art.  Computer algorithms may create the forms of art, in that they write onto CDs or digital tape, but I think it is generally accepted that most art today does come to a point of completion.  I just don’t understand the connection between the line about computer algorithms and “in this way the art is ever-changing.”  Star Wars has been re-edited a number of times.  “Born to Run” has been remastered.  Is this what he means?  When people create movies of music, they are exactly recording and playing-back as a way of creating.  However, these are just means of efficiency and revision in the artistic process.  The only difference as I understand it, is that modern technology allows for faster and wider distribution of art works.  Using a computer to splice footage or mix a musical recording is a tool used in constructing a composition from what is only an abstract idea.  Am I way off?

I'm going to post this because I can't help myself, and I know it's pre-digital, but this kind of thing is still done today. (1:42-4:20)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UqFhDaJN38&feature=player_detailpage&x-yt-cl=84838260&x-yt-ts=1422327029#t=102