I didn’t find myself needing to speak about any particular images in my essay I thought that I could include images that were necessary to get some of my points across but discovered as I started writing that they weren’t really necessary. I did however want to include images that prove or elaborate on the arguments that I am making and with the idea that photoagraphs usually show what is going on it seems like a no brainer not to illustrate my points with images. The images I have chosen to include in my final essay are these two images.
This image is of an art installation by artist Nele Azevedo and is constructed of ice figures that are created to sit for a day and melt. This is a comment about the effects of global warming but the temporary side to this art is the bit that I was interested. in my essay I have started to talk about the idea of making art that you know is going to disappear and this brings up the question of the originality in a work of art such as this. the argument in my essay ask the question if by creating more art that just vanishes after it has upheld its purpose for a limited time does this give it an originality that art which is permanent doesn’t have. I think these melting sculptures are a great literal illustration of this concept.
I found this image in an article in the guardian and thought that it would make a great illustration of the point about are expectance of a reproduction in the place of the original. the part that interested me the most is the gentleman in the bottom left of the farm who is in the presence of arguably the most famous piece of art in the world but he is not engaging with it by actually looking at the image but is content to look at his tiny camera screen instead. I think that if we are content in a reproduction to the extreme that we don’t even look at it when it is right in front of us then it is of the same value as a reproduction and losses its aura as an original.