One of the negative effects technology has on art is the ability to make duplications. Reproductions can be found in a variety of places, in a number of forms; some paintings look so real, the only way to discern the difference is through complex scientific processes. Technology has made the differentiation between originals and copies very challenging. While the presence of this ability allows art to make its way to the masses, it also depreciates the value of the piece. As new technologies enable more individuals to acquire seemingly identical reproductions of classic pieces of art, the seamless convergence of art, science, and technology has been completed.

     Benjamin argues “mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses towards art” (8). As art is available to more and more people, individual reactions are muted; no longer is a piece of art seen as an incredible creation, but one of many that millions can see, similar to a piece of cinema. Before art was reproduced so seamlessly, it had an air of uniqueness to it, only certain individuals able to see the work of artistic masters. With reproduction, however, art has reached the masses, and the distinction between the haves and the have-nots is diminishing. While artistic reproductions provide the majority of individuals to see the amazing works of fine artists, there are a number of negative aspects that are equally important.




-Junki Chae

Comments are closed.