Famous Chef Jamie Oliver's Ideas

The mass production of any object of course changes it in someway. There are beneficial sides to mass production of any creative work such as spreading access, making the creator more well known and therefore more likely to gain new commissions, or making the spread of what they see as their message to new audiences. However perhaps from a purely artistic point of view the fact that a creation becomes mass means it looses some of its uniqueness. As creative work is duplicated and exposed to more people in more than its original form or medium it gains a greater audience but may lose its original meaning. Instead of saying that mass production is good or bad we should look at the creators intent. Renowned theorist and critic Walter Benjamin

While this is perhaps true other creative people use mass production as a means of distributing their message. However for some the ability to mass produce is part of their creation itself. Famous chef Jamie Oliver uses mass media exposure of his recipes through books and television to share his ideas and methods for achieving healthier eating more better, more affordable quality of life. In some cases such as the recent Deadpool movie the use of a new medium brings a wider audience to the creators ideas and expands it from a niche following. As creative practitioners Benjamin, Oliver and Reynolds’s different uses and idea’s of mass production have alternatively changed the relationship between the objects/ pieces they have created to themselves as well as their

The art piece becomes something that is no longer unique or authentic (Benjamin, Jennings, Doherty, Levin, & Jephcott, 2008). In Benjamin’s The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, and other writings on media he writes specifically about a uniqueness that is created in an art piece and how printing brought change to art in its most traditional form (Benjamin, Jennings, Doherty, Levin, & Jephcott, 2008). Mas dissemination devalues the meaning, idea, and total value of the work. He argues that once copied and distributed from the original the relationship between the work and it’s creator and also the people exposed to it is not what was originally intended. This relationship is altered in different ways depending on the medium and audience but you could say he means the creator loses control of how the work will be understood. Others explain his idea as the created piece being a connection or link to the original creator or belief behind it (Hansen, 2008). “To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose “sense of the universal equality of things” has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction.” (Benjamin, Jennings, Doherty, Levin, & Jephcott, 2008) Benjamin’s ideas on the process/use of reproduction in art almost resemble an argument about economic production and how it creates a