I was beginning to reread through some Benjamin stuff, especially his essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," in which Benjamin discusses the loss of the aura. Benjamin describes photographs as lacking an aura unless it is of scenery or of a person.
What about a photograph of a photograph of a person? In this case the photograph is of an object (the photograph) not a person. But the photograph being photographed is of a person.
What do you think, Mike or Pat?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ah Miss Annie, I believe that this is a GREAT question! I think that since the photograph is indeed of another photograph, it is an object, therefor lacks aura. But here is the double edged sword, can you see the person in the photograph of the photograph? If so then again, one would assume that indeed there must be an aura in the picture, but in fact since the person of the photograph in the photograph is in an object, it becomes an object in itself, the person inside the photograph becomes the object that is being photographed, the person becomes the object of the photograph and therefore has ZERO aura. Lose you yet? : )
ReplyDelete