Continuing on from a look into early print cultures, this weeks lecture focused more on the role and place of print in modern culture and the way print influences the communication and receipt of information.
Considering the idea of 'aura' , the return of mechanical production methods in the 21st century does not seem unjustified. An interesting point raised in the lecture was; why are people still interested in the handmade when there are new, easier and more efficient methods that achieve reliable results? In terms of fashion and day to day exercises of communication and distribution, digital seems perfect for its fast turn-arounds and immediate results. Yet I have understood that the aesthetic quality and labour involved in products can alter how they are received. The hand of the maker evident in print processes, and their uniqueness through process gives them qualitative weighting and challenges mass production.
Mechanical print seems to promote the humanisation of communication.
Interestingly, points were also raised about the consequence of print. The ability of print processes to produce multiple outcomes is suggested to remove their aura. However, I feel this is an issue only applicable to the reproduction of art, and most certainly digital reproduction. The very nature of print is unpredictable and never the same, so I think the aura of mechanical print goes without question. Digital print and reproduction however, are more controlled and exploit the aura of mechanical techniques, killing the culture surrounding them.
In light of my critical writings it may be useful to explore this sense of aura and process in terms of taste and how media and process is related to the status art works achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment