Performing the Moment- "Ready, Set.... Action!"

In this reading, Olsen addresses and expands on Walter Benjamin’s essay: "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." While she explains his original concept of "auratic distance," I find myself both agreeing that this is a fundamental truth of today's art world, but in the same token I disagree that it is something inherently associated with the emergence of digital media.

"Auratic distance," without the aid of digital media, is naturally inflicted on older works of art that we may describe as "classic", "aesthetic" or as generally being from any different age and/or era. This happens simply because we as individuals are removed (in both time and space) from the artwork's original "unveiling", it's original place of installation and the social circumstances that surrounded it. We will never experience a classical work of art is it was originally intended to be experienced.

However, I will agree whole heartedly that the use of photography and digital media has exacerbated this phenomenon by showing images in various scenarios, texts and mediums. Instead of describing "auratic distance" as being a degenerative syndrome, it can be argued that there is another aspect of this said aura in which we gain. Rapid replication and the ability to reach out to a massive audience is just another medium for artists to play with. It changes the nature of the aura, but in the same token, it can breathe life into something old and bring a fresh new perspective to art.

For example: Chris Burden's 'Shoot.'
It appears that photography is an afterthought concerning this piece: the photos merely act as proof of a moment that has already past. Supposedly (and hopefully I'm not wrong in assuming this) the action was the true work of art; in true conceptual fashion- the moment, or the "happening", was the pinnacle of art itself. The dematerialization of the object may have detracted from any importance that could be attributed to a physical token such as a photograph.

Later artists would attribute more importance to the mediums of photography and film, allowing these mediums to play a far larger role than merely documenting "proof" of an event. That something *has* happened is no longer the required focus of a work. Care and thought may now be given to the documentation of an event, and how its presentation may influence an audience. If something is installed in a gallery or broadcast indiscriminately over the internet: this will effect how a work is seen and/or experienced. If participation is promoted, the aura of such a work may become mutable and transient with every new contribution or viewing. Something such as this makes the theory of "auratic distance" merely another hue for the performing artists palette.

As Olsen's essay continues, It appears that she is saying the same thing that I'm thinking, here... but is this agreeing with, or contesting Benjamin's original essay?

I began to read his essay here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

It appears that Benjamin's theory is far more complex than I could originally gather from Olsen's brief rehashing of events.
In fact- now that I've browsed through it a few times, I'm going to go print it out and read it in earnest before I start thinking up any more potentially incorrect assumptions.

Primary sources are awesome- the end.