Search Results
7/19/2025, 3:21:53 PM
>>40755951
>Iconographic paintings are not signifiers but are physical structures that exist in both worlds. A picture of a saint is not a picture of a saint, it is the saint, physically in space with you.
>I’d like to touch base on some more recent history. Walter Benjamin’s iconic 1935 essay on the mechanized field of aesthetics. Benjamin claims that in the past, the role of artistic production has been to provide a magical foundation for the cult. He claims that then, value was located in a central position within ritual and religious tradition, a statue or an idol has a detached authority and power which is implicit only as rooted in time.
here there we see the problem of repeatability brought up here again:
>The mass reproduction of such an object was not just unlikely, it was unimaginable. To remove it from its history was to render it useless to itself, to remove the aura of object, that detached and transcendental beauty.
>But a digital object appears across a multiplicity of screens both at once and forever. These entities are not individually manipulable, which is to say they do not exist in multiples that can accumulate their singular times and histories and auras, but as a single form. In this space, a copy is not a manipulation, it’s a recreation
what the author here happens to be stressing is the aspect of participation that can still be relevant to the audience. the nature of the digital transforms our consumption of images to be much more like having a relation to some platonic entity (and hence moving closer to relation with the divine) than an individual object. in a drawfag like thread there is an opportunity for both active and passive participation with transpersonal beings to join together in this way.
>Iconographic paintings are not signifiers but are physical structures that exist in both worlds. A picture of a saint is not a picture of a saint, it is the saint, physically in space with you.
>I’d like to touch base on some more recent history. Walter Benjamin’s iconic 1935 essay on the mechanized field of aesthetics. Benjamin claims that in the past, the role of artistic production has been to provide a magical foundation for the cult. He claims that then, value was located in a central position within ritual and religious tradition, a statue or an idol has a detached authority and power which is implicit only as rooted in time.
here there we see the problem of repeatability brought up here again:
>The mass reproduction of such an object was not just unlikely, it was unimaginable. To remove it from its history was to render it useless to itself, to remove the aura of object, that detached and transcendental beauty.
>But a digital object appears across a multiplicity of screens both at once and forever. These entities are not individually manipulable, which is to say they do not exist in multiples that can accumulate their singular times and histories and auras, but as a single form. In this space, a copy is not a manipulation, it’s a recreation
what the author here happens to be stressing is the aspect of participation that can still be relevant to the audience. the nature of the digital transforms our consumption of images to be much more like having a relation to some platonic entity (and hence moving closer to relation with the divine) than an individual object. in a drawfag like thread there is an opportunity for both active and passive participation with transpersonal beings to join together in this way.
Page 1