Reading Response 2

In Peter Halley’s article “Nature and Culture” I found it interesting that the dynamics in art changed as society changed. He used the example and time era of World War II a lot. Art in that time period, and shortly after, was greatly influenced by the war. People that experienced it and lived through it became use to the idea of war and its affect on society. It became normal to hear about it on the news. It became an every day occurrence for people to die, for something to blow up, for some one to protest. It became second nature. A lot of art is based on the relationship of the artist to their immediate environment and emotions. Artists during World War II were heavily influenced by their immediate reality. Their emotions and experiences of that war influenced their work. Halley also stated that back in the Bourgeois period, a lot of laws prohibited any sort of impulsiveness and emotionality.  This goes to show how the constantly changing society evolves the style and approach to art. The generations of artists after World War II changed the art scene as well. War was not a second nature to them. They never experienced it in person. Photographs and stories may have given a taste of what it may have actually been like, but this generation couldn’t make any authentic work about World War II. Because their natural world was different from the World War II generation, their art was based on a different relationship. It was still a relationship with nature, just a different one. Halley asks the question about why certain practices of art that have been around for decades suddenly disappear and new ones emerge. I believe it has a lot to do with our changing culture. Things natural and common thirty or forty years ago either are or are becoming obsolete. Artificial and synthetic things are referred to as “natural” like perfume or deodorant because it is a normal necessity. Intellectual philosophy causes people to develop new trends.

Walter Benjamin talks about the importance and difference of replicating work. Making a replica of a painting almost devalues it. Take for instance the Mona Lisa. This is a beyond priceless piece. All the money in the world couldn’t buy it. It began to appear more and more as posters, cards, umbrellas, napkins and so many more things that could be bought for less than ten dollars. The authenticity is stripped not from the original piece but the copy. It doesn’t have the same essence as the actual Mona Lisa. Benjamin describes it an “aura”. It was not originally paint on a calendar. Benjamin compares it to film and the relationship between the actor and the character they are playing. No one will ever truly know a character in a movie 100 percent. The character is being channeled through the actor, like the original Mona Lisa is being channeled in a book. It’s not the real thing. It gives the viewer or audience a taste of the authentic character or painting. An actor will always portray a little bit of him or herself through the character they are playing. They are merely a representation of someone else.