The Lord of the Rings and Medieval Paintings: Will Wolter

Benjamin’s critique on movies and theatre compared to art show the flaws of technology and the diminishment of authenticity mass reproduction causes on original art. Benjamin states that, “in the theater one is well aware of the place from which the play cannot immediately be detected as illusionary. There is no such place for the movie scene that is being shot. Its illusionary nature is that of the second degree, the result of cutting” (Benjamin). This is to show how a reproduction of a piece of art loses its originality once it is transformed into another form of art or copied. In this case, the movie has restricted camera angles which limit what the audience sees. However in the painting, the image is frozen and all can be seen for the audience without restrictions. The painter obtains a “total” image compared to the cameraman whose image captures “multiple fragments” of reality (Benjamin). The painter differs because of his ability to capture his image from not only from a distance literally, but of a distance from reality. The cameraman is limited to reality and is forced to penetrate into the image. This is significant in analyzing the difference in LOR and the painting. The painting is limitless and can escape the confines of reality, while the movie is restricted to time and space in which reality lies. The painting maintains its “aura” of originality because of its limitlessness to reality and its ability to be unique and never perfectly reproduced. Unlike the painting, the movie is unable to maintain its originality because it can be viewed by numerous amounts of people. A painting however, Benjamin says, “is in no position to present an object for simultaneous collective experience”. This is one of the defining characteristics in which the two media differ. The authenticity and experience from the two forms of art separate them, one restricted by reality and the other limitless.

Both media have advantages over the other. Although the painting has no restrictions to reality, the movie also has unique abilities. Videos can appear to alter reality “with the close up, space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended” (Benjamin). This argument shows that videos may be restricted to camera angles, time and space, etc., but can be more refined with new technological advances such as previously stated close ups and slow motion effects. Both of these effects add to the video clip of the LOR. The zoom on the faces and the battle going into slow motion create a different experience that cannot be captured in a painting. Experiences like this are why “you fell in love not just with actors but with cinema itself” (Sontag). Though the authenticity stated by Benjamin of the painting is not captured by the movie, the movie itself has a different aura in which to audience obtains from the video, which Sontag relates to as “cinephilia”. Authenticity is an important aspect of art, but only 70% of your senses are visual when you engage in observing. Another 20% is listening, which is excluded from just looking at a painting, and which is only obtained by watching and listening to a movie (Heilig). Though there are similarities between the two media, they both contain very different experiences gained from observing the art and also have their own aura, one based on authenticity and the other based on cinephilia.

http://www.kosovo.net/kosbitka2y.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpwsKRpKS_M&feature=related