1. In paragraph VII, Benjamin talks about the confusion between the artistic value of painting vs photography. He mentions photography has been under question whether or not it is a form of art and whether it is photography that actually changed the entire nature of art. Since photography and film is still new, would past art such as paintings be valued less than what film and photography would be worth centuries from now? Do we value photography and film more even in today's time?
2. In paragraph XI, Benjamin asks the questions "How does a cameraman compare with the painter?" He compares them with a magician and a surgeon as polar opposites and how a magician works more distant where a surgeon works more direct. It is true that both the painter and cameraman will come up with two totally different pictures because of the way they work, however, wouldn't they still be considered the same in that they both want to achieve some sort of reality, such as both the magician and the surgeon both work to heal the sick?
On question 1, it is certainly debatable that photography is "new". It is been around since the late 19th century. But the sentiments are understood! You will find different measures where you are, but from what I understand, painting is either on an equal tier or greater than what is has always been understood as throughout history. The essence of a 'painting' might disappear in our mind but it is undeniable we appropriate it in our modern existence/artwork.
ReplyDeleteAlso... Some say that if you a worthwhile painter, you are by default an intermediate videographer with understanding of basic composition, color design, and still-frame narrative. Video more often than not is "still" with not erratic movement. At least more subtle forms of video/cinema.