CAN ART BE MECHANICALLY REPRODUCED?

I have some opinions that are a little different, but overall GREAT PRESENTATION WEEK 3!!

I believe that a piece of art having been reproduced for so many times, is still art. I feel as reproducing it is just a way of sharing it. It may not have the same quality as the original because it is after all just a copy. If it was said that it was not art anymore, it is like saying that a photograph is not a photograph anymore if many copies were made of it. The importance of mechanical reproducibility is that now art is available to anyone who is interested, it isn't just for the rich anymore. Being able to put images onto newspapers and books is huge, it gives the reader more of an understanding of what the article or story may be saying in words. Now it can be seen. A very good example of the impact of mechanical reproducibility on society is the camera. Although it gave the greater mass of the population the power to create their own art, it affected those who had jobs in the field. Such as those who had the skills to produce what these machines could do. Photography is both art, and a tool used by artists. It plays first as a tool that creates beautiful art. Whomever the photographer is, gives us a different perspective on a subject matter. We may see an object just as an object, but the photographer can manipulate angles, light, and lenses to get a different perspective on it. The reason that Henry P. Robinson created fading away was to create the feeling of feelings and emotion. This idea is so great because it is not more than just a picture, its more than that now.