Painting is an art form. So is music, prose, and dance. No one argues otherwise. But photography, since its inception, has had to prove itself as a legitimate art form.
Halo
One argument against photography is the case that it has no aura. Here, Halo is defined as a “unique position in time and space.” You only have a painting or a carved sculpture. There is only one original of the Mona Lisa. There is only one original David by Michelangelo.
Case for context
This argument for aura is not concurrent. Think about it: there is certainly only one original Mona Lisa, but thanks to technology, we can all “see” the Mona Lisa through digital and reconstructed images.
Likewise, with music or performance, it may be the case that a work is performed for a particular audience at a particular time. But with audio players and video cameras, a performance can be experienced over and over on many different devices.
Sure, there’s always some sort of “original”, but that’s pretty much a moot point. If I have experienced that, I have experienced that. Is the original important? Maybe it does or it doesn’t, but that’s a much longer discussion.
critic John Berger instead argues that a particular work of art is precisely because it can be replicated. Now, instead of going to an art gallery and experiencing a work in the particular context of said gallery, you can see it anywhere.
Imagine someone living in an urban environment viewing images of natural landscapes on their home computer. Now, imagine another person living in the countryside watching the same landscape. The different experiences and different contexts in which each person views the work will change the work for each viewer.
Theoretical assumptions aside, let’s try this as an exercise. I want you to look at the image below and then see your surroundings. How do you feel about both, the image and the space you’re viewing it in?
Consider bookmarking this page and coming back to it when you’re somewhere else. If you’re out now, consider viewing the image above while you’re at home. Or, if you’re at home, consider checking it out next time you’re somewhere else.
This is precisely the undisputed case against the idea of a single work of art or original. That is to say, being able to have audiences see the work of different people in different contexts is what makes a work special. This is exacerbated by digital technology and smartphones: suddenly, anyone can watch anything from anywhere.
Conclusion
Historically, the setting is ingrained in the work itself. When considering European art, most works were commissioned by religious institutions or by the wealthy elite. In both cases, the works are painted or sculpted to be viewed in a single context. A picture in a room is painted to be viewed in that room and not elsewhere. No one sees it unless they go to that room in that building. Now, you can see almost anything anywhere; that changes the way that thing is viewed.
