Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

The reading titled “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” was a mishmash of wordiness and overcomplicated ideas.  So I tried my best to pull some base information and ideas from what the article said.  What I got was that the author isn’t a huge fan of the idea of mechanical reproduction or overproduction of some art.  I think that it really depends on what kind of art you are talking about.  Paintings obviously cannot be reproduced exactly over and over again in most cases, even Picasso couldn’t paint The Boy and the Pipe twice nor should he.  However, photographers have to print multiple copies of their photos because of a simple process in the darkroom and photo lab while trying to get the perfect image.  If these secondary prints happen to be released into the public and are sold, so be it, it doesn’t make the artwork worse, only maybe less appreciated. 

            There also seemed to be a little bit of beef with photography.  Maybe just a lack of respect because it can be so easily reproduced, but I have certainly seen paintings that were one of a kind and looked like shit, and photographs that had been printed 1000 times but were awe inspiring.  This is why to me it seems like it’s an issue that should be addressed differently for each individual case.  If I go to the 1 hour photo shop and get doubles or singles, its not going to make a difference because my photos are just snapshots of me and my friends, I could get a thousand of them and it would be worth the same (nothing) as if I just printed one.  However, if you look at fashion as art, which many people do, a designer creates a beautiful dress or shirt or pair of shoes and the company creates thousands it can still cost a lot of money and people will hold the same respect for it.  Im rambling now so ill stop, it was confusing and seemed to float around the ideas I just discussed, GET FOCUSED AND STOP CONFUSING ME!