Che! And T-Shirts

Aura. I like that term a lot. This reading made me reflect about technology and its effect on art.  As a species we have gone through so many different types of forms of expression. From painting and writing to film and photography.

I think it is interesting, however, that often these “mechanical reproductions” of art, the newer means by which we can create, take the aura from the piece of art. The newer means by which we create art (such as photography) somehow cut the essence of the subject.

I think that may be, as the text suggests, because the new mechanical reproductions are many times used for massive production. How can something made to be overproduced and capitalized over represent a pure aura?

This whole problematic of the mechanical reproductions reminded of the Che Guevara shirts we see being sold everywhere. Poor Che Guevara… His image is mass produced and sold for profit, fitting perfectly into the capitalist system, when in reality he advocated for the complete opposite.  Not that he was necessarily the best person ever, but it sad to see one’s values be completely obliterated and re-appropriated.

Buy here a Che Guevara t-shirt for only $24!!!

I feel that pictures of paintings also possess that hypocrisy. The artist produces a painting at a particular moment, with a particular feeling, for it to exposed to the nude eye and evoke different emotions on people. Painting are “supposed” to be analyzed close by, when people can see the slight paint curves made from the brush. A photographic reproduction of a painting lacks in aura completely.

I like how the author talks about the differences between theater and film as well. As a former “actress” I always felt like video lacked the personal interaction of audience and performers. Film feels more fabricated and pre-conceived, without space for error and improvisation. In a way, I believe film lacks the “aura” theater has.

That’s it” I am really tired. I am sorry if I don’t make sense.