it's the society of the spectacle, man

Edward is not happy about this exhibition.  I don't blame him.  A few quick thoughts:

- The museums and other institutions which own the works in question had to agree to allow the reproductions to be used.  Typically there's a fee for such use, although it may be waived in some cases.  Fees vary from organization to organization, and often by use (a full color poster for commercial sale versus a small black and white image in a historical society's newsletter, etc.)  What fees did the owners of the paintings charge for this use?  And in agreeing to allow their paintings to be used, what do they implicitly say about the importance of the direct experience of art?

- Reproductions obviously are not bad in themselves.  We all view them, and often like them.  But at a certain point, the situation changes. It's the Sorites Paradox in action, to borrow from Kriston's housemate.   I wasn't thrilled by the mock-ups of some of Jacques-Louis David's work that were used in the Clark's exhibition last year, but I understood: those paintings aren't going to travel and some indication of their appearance was needed to help provide context for the preparatory drawings, sketches, and related works that were on hand.  This is different.

- The most annoying result of the exhibition will no doubt be the boring, tendentious uses it will lend itself to on the part of grad students and assistant professors still chewing over 20-30 years old critical theory.

- Oh, and Edward's blog is so good, it's scary.

Comments

[Jason]

True, we are all probably tired of talking about artworks in the age of mechanical reproduction. And yet, this exhibition seems to provide a very clear model for inciting discussion topics initiated by Benjamin and other thinkers from philosophy past. I would not care to read any essays about the LUMA exhibit where old theoretical models are applied to the present. However, in a recent discussion class, I could not help but take my students to see the show. For undergrads I think it provided an invaluable tool for talking about abstract issues in a real time forum. These issues may be boring and tendentious to those of us who are 'over it' but they are also historical ideas that should be taught. It seems that students are still interested in talking about issues of authorship, and for that reason alone Benjamin and company are not ready to be discarded yet. It is perhaps a classroom exercise and, I agree, should stay there.