I think that these articles work well in conjunction with each other. Benjamin discusses the relationship of art in the time of mass reproduction. Aarseth deals more with the semantics of vocabulary used to describe “new” forms of digital media. Both articles address the problem of how we discuss these forms. Benjamin presents an ideology developed when film was still being discussed as a new form of art. He differentiates film from other forms of artistic expression such as painting and sculpture in the form of ritual objects. In his opinion, media that has been reproduced loses “the aura” that distinguishes it as unique and in the process disconnects it from the lineage of creation of sacred ritual objects.
This brings me to Aarseth’s discussion of virtual reality and his differentiation between computer generated 3D animation and analog film. I tend to disagree with his distinction between the two forms. While I agree with his notion that classifying various forms of digital media is problematic, I see analog film and digital 3D animation as similar enough to classify them both as digital filmmaking due to the fact that both rely on binary information at some point in the process of narrative story telling. The degree to which they use the computer seems less significant to me. I would wonder more if 3D does not tend to cross another line towards the creation of “virtual” worlds if not “virtual reality”, or the creation of a reality that does not exist. Is 3D animation another form of virtual reality when it strives to create nonexistent worlds that are realistic enough to suspend viewer’s disbelief and engage them in the narrative?
I am left conflicted after reading both articles. I find myself defending film as a medium in reaction to Benjamin, yet still uncomfortable with labeling film as new media due to Aarseth’s dismantling of the term. Perhaps the troubling term “new” may simply be used to describe artistic forms of expression that we have not successfully developed a language for and theoretical understanding of. By this definition, film may not be new media in that the critical language used to discuss it has reached the masses. Will the reliance on technology to produce the type of work in question tend to direct our thinking and discussions to “how’” rather than the temporal experience of viewing it until the technology becomes as easily understood as cinema technique? Perhaps “new media” work should include “how did they do that” featurettes to quickly dispel those questions and create room for deeper discussions.
twitter
flickr
facebook
Equipment