In a message dated 7/5/08 4:10:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Now, the reason film, for instance, has no aura is due to the fact that > there is no qualitative distinction to be made between the 'original' and > the reproductions:' no matter where you see the film (in Berlin, New York, > Buenes Ares, etc) it's the same. > I thought he said that film has no aura because the space and time it represents is entirely composed of mechanical processes even if those processes reproduce known places and people. The thing it self doesn't exist, it is made of a series of mechanical processes combined to make another mechanical process. It has no history of ownership, no restricted exhibition, and no publicized authenticity or cultural value in the sense that a madonna might.(Unfortunately since 1936 this description of aura has become true for some films-Metropolis forexample. I have a copy of Metropolis in DVD-but it is not the entire film, which is in only one place. Metropolis is not often shown in public,its ownership-who has the rights to its commodification-has been in question,and of course it now has in either version known cultural value.) I also don't think that great skills are necessary to perceive aura- because less hidebound by manners and the conventions of experiencing "art"the "disadvantaged proletariat" is probably more capable of perceiving the excitement of standing in front of something which is very old, used to belong to a very important person who only let a few people see it and which itself is very important for its subject or its skill. In any case aura of itself has nothing to do with the equality or inequality of its viewers but only pertains to the object it is the aura of and not its surroundings, be they never so humble. Kate Sullivan ************** Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
