Well yeah, but I don't see with what they DID with the medium has any relevance to the fact that it's not a singular, unique object. (It is a singular, unique art experience, in the sense that you're not going to go into the theater and see something totally different that calls itself Triumph of the Will).
What is lost is the immediacy, the closeness, the aura of the object. Its uniqueness becomes challenged. It is no longer authentic.
So anyway, I guess I just don't see why this isn't a misuse of language; it just means that "immediacy and closeness" have something to do with being a space that contains a verifiable original art work. Which has nothing to do with the immediacy and closeness of Ashlee Simpson's songs.
That is, nothing is lost (except maybe file quality) in transferring music from performance to computer to disc to iPod. I don't understand why you would start with the assumption that something should be "lost" when there's no one unique object-in-a-room I can engage with.
no subject
What is lost is the immediacy, the closeness, the aura of the object. Its uniqueness becomes challenged. It is no longer authentic.
So anyway, I guess I just don't see why this isn't a misuse of language; it just means that "immediacy and closeness" have something to do with being a space that contains a verifiable original art work. Which has nothing to do with the immediacy and closeness of Ashlee Simpson's songs.
That is, nothing is lost (except maybe file quality) in transferring music from performance to computer to disc to iPod. I don't understand why you would start with the assumption that something should be "lost" when there's no one unique object-in-a-room I can engage with.