SW Benjamin and Nirvana

Benjamin had some great points in The Work of Art. I posted last week on the idea that we are not really able to create a true Craftsman home in 2008. After the reading I was able to understand why. A home built today is completely different than a home built 100 years ago. And what would be most different is the aura. “Aura is tied to [his] presence, there can be no replica of it” Benjamin (26). Times have changed. If da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa today, would we still appreciate it?

Benjamin also claims that “mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art” (29). This section (XII) made me think of music and bands, more precisely garage bands. When Nirvana first came about people who didn’t know it, thought very little of it. It was their cult following who enjoyed it socially. Yet when the band started getting more airtime on radio, more people became exposed, and more people began to critique it. Popularity on radio meant multiply copies in stores. These tapes and CDs got Nirvana’s art out into the world. For the many of us who have never seen Nirvana live, will never truly be able to grasp the aura of Nirvana. Yet, that does mean we cannot enjoy and recognize how much of an impact Nirvana made in the music business. We can appreciate mechanical reproduced art, yet will not be able to fully understand unless we are in the presence of the original.

While some would argue that Nirvana is solely responsible for the 90’s grunge look, we might want to take a look at their predecessors, to see who and what inspired them. If all books are from books, is all music from music, all art from art?

“Scarlett Wishes”

Mechanical Reproduction

As with most readings from "Media and Ciltural Studies," the first few paragraphs left me wondering what the entire piece from Walter Benjamin is truly about.  It was not until the sentence "In principle a work or art has always been reproducible" that I began to understand the greater context of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction."

When Benjamin begins discussing authenticity I became enthralled.  He discusses how "even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space" (20).  While it is an amazing gift o be able to reproduce any work of art, he exhaggerates that nothing beats the original.  The feeling, the aura, the history, or the context would all not be there.  The piece of artwork was created in the specific place at the specific time for a specific purpose.  Taken out of the context, one can still read of the history but nobody can exactly feel the authentic piece for what it truly is.

In contrast, I enjoyed how Benjamin provides two positive uses for replicas as the piece is about the advancements replications have provided us with.  He recognizes that replicas can often enhance an image or artwork, and take it to another level visually.  While it would lose its aura, it has the possibility to gain brilliance.  Also, he recognizes that they allow those who would not normally be able to experience great artwork, the opportunity to view or even own a similar experience.

Walter Benjamin provided a well written and a well organized insight into the art of mechanical reproduction.  Interesting because it is a trend that many overlook, for it has been a privilege our generation has always known.  Most of the things we possess today are due to mechanical reproduction, and most of us do not even realize there was ever an original.

Postmodernism

As I was sitting in Dr. Casey's guest lecture the other day, I was thinking to myself how architecture was a great way to visually see what the postmodern movement is understood to be. Because there is no authoritative definition yet, there is only so much abstract ideas about what a movement is that I can only take, personally. 

As I was looking on the internet for some more ideas about what postmodernism is, I came across this notion of the "ultimate truth". How can something with no definition be described as the "ultimate truth"? Well, seeing how postmodernism influenced many architects to go to extremes and use all materials that are available to them. I understood what this meant. 

One specific building that I think illustrates this the best is one that Dr. Casey showed us, the Pompidou Centre in Paris. This museum is the modern art museum, which is ironic because it is a postmodern structure. What makes this a great illustration of the "ultimate truth" is how architect Renzo Paino exposed the skeleton of the building to the exterior and the main aspect of the building. As Dr. Casey pointed out, even the air conditioning units and water pipes are not hidden, but rather exposed for all to see. 

I think this is a great way to see how postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. Just like this building, nothing is hidden, and Piano used "variety over objective".

Dr. Casey's Presentation

Charles Jencks’ article entitled the Emergent Rules gave me a small glimpse into postmodern architecture. However I felt that this article was a bit confusing and I did not understand a lot of the terminology such as disharmonious harmony among others. Coming into class on Thursday I was very excited to hear Roger Casey speak. I know he has a reputation to be an exceptional speaker with extraordinary presentations. His presentation last week did not disappoint me! I thought he was very articulate and engaging. Dr. Casey cleared up a few confusing topics that I came across during my reading of Jencks.
Dr. Roger Casey used great pictures during his power point presentation to compliment what he was saying. His slides were great assets to drive home his explanations of double coding, radical eclecticism, as well as urban urbanism. With these pictures I could really grasp what Jencks was talking about in his article. Not only did Roger Casey use photos that really showed his points, but the photos he used were interesting and unique themselves. I thought it was great how Dr. Casey brought his speech about architecture to Winter Park when he talked about how Baldwin Park was constructed.
It was nice that Dr. Casey used some examples of Architecture that I have actually seen firsthand so that I could better understand what he was talking about. I have been to the Louvre in Paris and seen the glass pyramid at the entrance. Being able to see this first hand gave me a very good idea of what radical eclecticism is.

Original? I think not...

After seeing Dr. Casey's presentation, it is much more clear to me how architecture goes hand-in-hand with postmodernism. Throughout all of the different buildings, you can see the change and openness to new ideas and way of thought.
Before the 1940's, there was no artistic thought to the way a building was produced. The only things that mattered were how usable a building was and to make sure it functioned well for the work that was to be done on the inside.
One of the concepts we discussed was calling something, "fresh, new, or original" even if the concept has been around for many years. For example, Steak and Shake calls it's steak burger, "The Original". Obviously this is not true because many places around the country had been making burgers before Steak and Shake came around. Also, when you walk into Stake and Shake, it's supposed to feel like "an original" dinner, and we all know that it is not. What makes something new or original? Dr. Casey said that it had to be a totally new idea, not an idea that was half-way based on another idea. It really does surprise me how many things in this world are made to look like they are the "real deal", when they are just copying something that has been done for many years.

Cinderella's Castle, Jenck's "Emergent Rules" and Postmoderism

Cinderella’s Castle

In Jenck’s article, “The Emergent Rules”, he lists eleven of the most significant facets of postmodern architecture. As I was reading, I noticed many of the ideas coincide fantastically with “Cinderella’s Castle” in the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World.

“Cinderella’s Castle” is fraught with “dissonant” beauty. The castle portion represents magic, fantasy and the imaginative wonder of little princesses’ around the world. It also is used to represent Disney as a cut-throat, winner-takes-all, ideological impending corporation. The castle fuses old world elegance with the reeking stench of merciless capitalism.

The castle is modeled after the castle in the fairy tale “Cinderella”. The castle from the fairy tale is a reproduction of the “Gothic” inspired castles built during the middle ages. The castle, however, is not made of stone and mortar. It has concrete walls and windows to no-where. It is a gate into a strange, post-modern fantasy land where a lot of money can get you just about anything. The castle is filled with technology as well. Its superficial designed has morphed many times, it even experienced a brief year decked in birthday cake attire. It is the ultimate combination of “classic” and “modern” thought architecturally. The castle also holds a valid postmodern symbolic value.

Millions of people are inspired to dream, and to follow their dreams when they see the castle. “Cinderella” is swept from her hum-drum life by “Prince Charming” to live her most perfect life as a princess. Many people find beauty and hope in the story that their own lives will magically change. They see this beauty and hope of a better life in the castle.

Millions of people are also contained to a life of false expectations, stuck on a circular path, because of the ideologies represented by the castle. Disney as a corporation forces millions of people to dehumanize and become “part of the scenery”. It plants dreams and hopes into children that are not logically possible. For example, it relates the idea of a “prince charming” as an actual possibility for young girls. In reality, there is no such thing. The castle is symbolic of all Disney ideals, good and bad, old and new.

Reflections on Dr. Casey's Talk

Dr. Casey’s talk really got me thinking about how many different styles of architecture reflect traditional and post modern styles that make up most of the buildings that we see on a daily basis. This is something we usually don’t think about and we usually describe buildings as, “oh that’s neat,” or “that just looks like a house.” From the designs of Baldwin Park and Rollins to the Bird’s Nest in Beijing and the Lourve in Paris the average person just looks at it and labels it with out really understanding the history and the style it tries to reflect. This talk gave me a new look on postmodernism and how its concepts link to so many things such as architecture, art, ect. It made me see how places all throughout the world use postmodernism in their architecture and the things that come out of it. Next time I look at “just a building” I’ll take a second glance at its form and style.