WoolyBully7, Lyotard

“The challenge lay essentially in that photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with a circulation a hundred thousand times larger than narrative or pictorial realism…”

After sharing my thoughts with a senior art history major, I came to believe that the more recognizable an image is, the more it is worth. By this I mean, the higher the circulation of an image, (i.e. The Mona Lisa), the original will be more famous as well as have a higher demand without sacrificing and significance or meaning of the legitimate original copy. Another example would be if no one had ever seen a Ferrari before, it would mean nothing to people and therefore have no value. But since most of us have seen either a Ferrari in a picture, video or in person, their value is so high. However I still do see the other side of the argument that a painting is a form of expression, and when it is mass circulated, it does lose some of its mystique and uniqueness. The idea behind the image can get a little tired or even changed altogether since there could potentially be millions of people analyzing and critiquing the image.

That was classic and Renaissance art. Modern art does show some similarities to the value and appreciation for the artwork. Modern art, however is expressed in so many more ways, and different ways. Yes we still have theatre, sculptors, artists, writers, musicians but now we have film directors that can technically be anyone with a camera. YouTube, for example, might be the world’s single largest collection of artwork. Some of the videos on the website have millions of hits, or views. I don’t think there is anything else in history than can say they have reached that many people and just devoted to any kind of video. Modern expression is not as concerned with distribution, with the exception of copyright laws and such.