Weekly Response #12

Emily Schmitt

ENG 280

Natalie M. Phillips

11/16/12

Weekly Response #12

“To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility” (Benjamin 1237).

(Satarpi 95)

Q: In an era where nearly everything can be easily reproduced or reimaged, what is to stop even the most complex and sacred works of art to be subjected to reproduction, and is this accessibility a bad thing.

A: As far as the images in Persepolis go, it is very obvious that they were meant to me simple and easy to understand, and by and by, easy to reproduce. I had little to no trouble recreating the panel when we did the poster project, and I might not be too bad of an artist myself, but I don’t believe I have any exceptional skill that cannot be learned with lots of practice. Persepolis was made to be easily reproduced and understood. The article is dated however in that it’s clear that at the point this was published it was still largely accepted that art not created in an easily reproducible medium wouldn’t be reproduced. This is not the case any longer. Due to advancements in technology I would venture to say that there is virtually no image that cannot be captured and reproduced. The shear accessibility of things like copiers, and cameras, is revolutionizing the idea that there might not be anything that is completely un-reproducible at all.

Works Cited

Walter, Benjamin. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. “Literary

Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rikvin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 4. Print.

Satrapi, Marjane. The Complete Persepolis. Pairs: L’Association, 2003. Print.