***This is just something I wanted to share that is in refection to the Benjamin reading. This does not directly answer the Analysis assignment; it’s just something that I was thinking about when reading the essay.

When I took my first art history class, something changed. I don’t know if it was because I was finally becoming a well rounded adult, or my inner artist crawling out from within, but I was dazzled by the pieces of art that were displayed on that huge projection screen. I looked at the color, and the objects or people; I tried to make out the brush strokes. It was the art piece itself that enthralled me, not the “meaning” behind it. It was the fact that there before me, although just a picture of a beautiful piece of work, stood something that people of generations hundreds before mine saw.

Then the professor went on and on and on, about the meaning of this, and social history of that. And I continued to stare at the art work with a stringent anger building. Why can’t art just be art? We are fed information that art has all these meanings, but most of the time they are just assumptions. People guessing what the artist was thinking, and what they were trying to say. The modern generations kill the aura of art. I thought maybe I was wrong for thinking so until I read the essay by Walter Benjamin.

Yes, professors and art historians do make good points, and more than not they are roughly accurate in their depiction of the meanings represented by art work, however unless noted by the artist, historians have no real idea behind the meaning of all pieces of art. Sometimes I think artists must be turning in their grave at what is being associated with their pieces. I believe that many artists made art for arts sake, or for themselves and their faith. That the pieces were not meant to be shown to the world and analyzed liked a political document.

Now going along with this, there is an issue with classic pieces of art being turned into things with hidden meanings, and quite possibly destroying the aura or original intent for a piece. One example of this is my favorite artist Bernini. In Dan Brown’s book “Angles and Demons”, he wrote a story on how pieces of work, (painting, sculptures and architectural structures) had hidden meanings. Although it is unknown for sure, many historians believe that Bernini laid out the illuminati path. Brown adopted that, and presented some of Bernini’s pieces as a part of this story. Now through the book and the movie, many people see Bernini’s work only as a piece of illuminati signs and “directions.” This is breaking the aura of such pieces as ‘The Ecstasy of St. Theresa.” For all we know the original aura of this piece could be to reflect its intended biblical story in a place of worship, not a sign pointing towards the next step in the illuminati path.

The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa -Bernini 1647-1652

Today’s popular culture has taken it as their right to distort and redirect meaning to not only Bernini, but many other artists work. This applies not only in the visual art sphere, but in literature and performing arts as well. Historians and professors force people to over analyze and think about these works, often making something into what it is not. I find it frustrating, and it’s not even my pieces being ripped apart. If I created something and it was being picked apart by people, or was used out on content I would haunt the person responsible. #JUSTSAYING

**okay just wanted to let that out. <3>