Week 4 - Themes and Theory

A couple weeks ago we discussed an article on "mechanical reproduction" of art. Now, given the fact that the article was written in 1935 and a bit has changed since then, I found myself taking what it said with a grain of salt. I mean, the article is actually older than my dad, and that's saying something. Photography and film, the article's main foci, are hardly the same as that they were in 1935. And especially mechanical reproduction, that is, duplication of a work via mechanized process such as film/photocopying, has completely blown up now in the digital age. To reproduce a piece is simply the work of a single click of a mouse in most cases. In fact, reproduction of art is so ingrained in our society, the idea of a singular piece of work or the value of the original is extremely diminished. Why go see the real Last Supper when I can look it up online? Why should I go look at original Escher prints when every college student with access to a poster sale has them up in his or her dorm? Why would I go to the premier of a movie when I can see it in any theater in America, or better yet why even leave my house when I can download it straight to my computer?

The key factor here is that this effect of "de-valuing the original" does not actually take away any worth of the original product, but removes the need for a full on pilgrimage to see it. Sure, some people find it their life's calling to go see the actual Mona Lisa in the Louvre, but for those of us who cant afford the thousands of dollars to go to Paris, mechanical reproduction is an amazing thing.
Also, with photography and film, their mechanical reproduction steers us to the concept that the singularity of a work does not have to directly relate to its value.

And that is how this concept most relates to my own work. With makeup art in film, the actual makeup itself and its use are almost two separate things. In a sense, I could do a makeup on someone as a stand-alone piece without the context of a movie. But then that's just body art. Not to discredit that, but for me it's context, its actual use and appearance in a film, that makes the makeup special. And then to have that work reproduced across the country, or even the world, is an amazing thing.
I want my work to be mechanically reproduced, because the effect of mechanical reproduction today is immortalization. Paint flakes off, latex deteriorates, foam prosthetics deflate, and silicone peels off. No makeup is permanent. Even the skin rejects it, as it regenerates underneath, pushing this external substance away from it. My work will not last 600 years like an oil painting, or 2000 like a marble statue. But in a movie it will be fresh forever.