The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction-
I do not understand why the author has to be so neurotic when delving into the reproduction of art. It is a widely accepted fact that when art has been massively reproduced it becomes more accessible to the masses. I believe that when art theorists speak so vaguely about art, they try and sum so many different groups of people in to one body that functions as a whole.
One must make obvious decisions when contemplating wether or not to reproduce a piece. If one has not taken such things into consideration i do not believe that the piece may even be called art.
What are some negative aspects that could possibly come about when reproducing a piece?
How does this article apply to todays art world/market?
Why does the author speak of art as though it has a spirit?
The Death of the Author- I was confused when The "person" of the author is being discussed. I saw no relevance to the "person" and capitalist society. Roland Barthes speaks highly and nostalgically of the author, but at the same time he speaks very critically of them throughout the article. I would like to state that this article has no relevance or impact on the process in which I create art.
Why does the Author come off as being a smug asshole?
What positive impact could reading this article have on my art?
Are there other philosophers who would categorize themselves with this author?