Are "originality" and "aura" used to keep a hierarchy of creation? Does it keep the price valuable and yet entirely invaluable simultaneously? An original piece of artwork may carry the mark of the person who made, but is having possession of an "original" more important that other aspects of the creative process? I think that although these terms may be used to maintain a cloud of mystery or value within a piece of art, for a piece to have this original aura, it must be the original. No replica can duplicate the experience of creation that an original contains. Copies are a convenience, but being actually in the presence of an original piece, sensing the size and magnitude of its creation, it is more powerful than merely observing a reproduction.
I was in Italy and had the chance to see Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. Although I had seen all the pieces, looking up and realizing the time, effort, and difficulty of painting such an elaborate ceiling and entire room struck me more than ever seen any of the pieces alone or as a group.
No comments:
Post a Comment