The second passage stood out to me as I was reading it. “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” While the rest of the passage talks about wear over time and how different technologies of different ages produced unique results, I saw another meaning to this. I saw that this also meant that things produced during certain times will hold different meanings; Reproducing the work does not reflect its original impact. This also ties into how artists who make replicas don’t produce work with the same intentions or train of thought as the original artist. Someone who recreates Van Gogh’s did not have the same turmoil or creative pauses as Van Gogh themselves. Original artists might have restarted or a hesitated on a piece of art hundreds of times but a replica would not share the same.
Bringing it back to the technology, it’s similar in that sense as well. As technology advances, there are easier ways to achieve the same effects but is the equipment not also part of the process? There are pros and cons to either side, obviously one is that you’re able to work faster or able to fix mistakes easier but again, it’s never really the same. The passage itself also mentioned the travel history of the art. For example, paintings that have survived war cannot compare to replicas. I guess you could say what the passage means by “presence in time and space” is a piece’s essence, its soul. To make an original idea, the artist puts their unique spin on things, even if it’s a simple landscape. That’s why two artists making original works based on the same reference will create different pieces. To put it short, replicas lack ‘lore’ and I think that’s really important to remember now when self proclaimed AI artists present themselves as artists who pick up paintbrushes. But that’s my take.
