His ideas apply to contemporary digital media in the way, as mentioned in his essay, of reproducing an image or object for the purpose of bringing it closer to you to attempt to recreate the actual aura you would feel if you were to witness it in real life. As digital media expands, images online just as in magazines or newspapers use images of landscapes as a form of maybe advertising a holiday destination, as an artform such as photography, or as a way of trying to share the 1st hand ‘aura’ you might have witnessed personally, by way of a photo you have taken. Film and mass media are another mentioned form of digital media that contributes to the ‘decay’ of a ‘things’ aura. Film brings things to a mass audience at once.
Art either online or created digitally by computer is diminishing the work of artists and their particular field of art. It is cheapening their profession and lessening the value of their work. As some artists rely on their works a form of income it ( if a little over dramatic) is having a profound effect on the industry.
No, in my opinion, a photoshopped image is not authentic. The only way it would be is if nothing has been added to the image, but it has beened cropped and adjusted so as to enhance a particular part of the image. That’s my personal opinion anyways. Not that there’s anything wrong with that..
In his terms I would say no to this, as he has noted in his lecture that he feels digital ‘things’ are causing a decay of the real life image or object’s ‘aura’ as ‘seen by the unarmed eye’.
Pw2611's Weblog 