Replication Theory

The second reading comment (http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/modern/The-Work-of-Art-in-the-Age-of-Mechanical-Reproduction.html) :

No matter how you define a piece of art, that definition resonates a certain meaning within you that makes you appreciate (or not) that what you consider as art, be it a urinal placed upside down in a gallery, a large painting, a video game or even an Anime episode. However in our day an age where scientists are cloning goats, any piece of art can be replicated, copied, reproduced and recreated. which leads us to the ultimate question of authenticity ; is this the original piece ? hell, What is an original piece anyway ? what would really be original authentic art anymore ? would quantity kill the value of the single original piece ? would availability kill the art itself ? those are essentially the questions addressed in the second Reading article.

comparing himself to Marx and how he explained capitalism, the author begins from the start on how the reproduction began. through history mechanical reproduction of artwork was present; ancient Greeks making coins, woodcuts in medieval times ,lithographs; reproduction has evolved along with art to satisfy the needs of man (and woman) to bring the artworks to his (and her) fingertips. but the craft of reproduction back then was in itself an art form till it became over used with the invention of the camera and the battle began, the definition of photography as art was the main topic of that age but the author focuses deeply on his own thesis and asks if photography of an art piece as a reproduction ruining the authenticity of a piece. he doesn't completely reach a solution for that but he puts the topic out in the open leaving it up for grabs to whoever wishes to address it.

the author stresses on art being a cult form ever since it started with the ancient cave drawings, it was meant to be underground (to him) so that it can be properly appreciated. Art ( to him) has this certain aura that gives it that appeal that makes it it authentic. And with art reproduced and unleashed to the masses that underground movement is now mainstream and the layman proletariat can have easy access to that coveted from of aesthetic emotional expression and communication. and not only did photography replicate pictures, it did so multiple times making the images move forming what is known today as film another form of art in itself yet it is still a form of reproduction itself.

He goes on to the comparison between the screen and stage actors and how the differences appear between them like the fact that the stage actor reacts with the audience directly whereas the screen actor works with a machine (the camera) and has to make his wraith of a shadow resonate enough so that once it is reprojected his performance would appear alive. also camera angles tend to control the viewers input to that form of performance putting them in a critic's point of view without any physical connection with the actor unlike when the actor is on stage and they have to interact mentally with him/her to be immersed within the performance. this analogy is similar to an artwork and its reproduction, no one is saying one is better than the other, the author himself states that film is more tuned in to reality because it is directly recorded through a machine while stage (the metaphorical painting) is more of an artist's work into trying to replicate reality into art form. the layman contemporary person reacts to the object closer to his reality making the reproductions (film) more easy for him to access.

Reproduction then makes art more accessible to the masses. making ti easy enough to have a simultaneous release of artwork reproductions on several fronts, while a painting can only be at one place at one time. giving reproductions more appeal to the masses just because IT'S THERE.


he ends on a note that through history issues like that have helped art evolve into newer fresher forms to fit that current time, and it will keep evolving. but will the forming of more masses from bringing cults together through replication be useful. will the proletariat prosper. He is concerned about fascism in that case and and says
"Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, whom Fascism, with its Fiihrer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values. "

He says that with technical aspects of reproduction conflict the authentic traditions of art making, that conflict is similar to a political war which would shape society into the next level, will they become the ultimate reproduction artists or will they revert to the old traditions in a scary Amish-like retrogression only time will till, but hey while we sit this war out just keep participating by creating your own artworks to see which would really prevail in today's world and tomorrow's universe.

The Bosma interviews and net art

So this is the first assignment, We had to comment on three interviews conducted by Josephine Bosma to "Net Artists" about how their work would be exhibited in a physical gallery. The most interesting part of the whole "E-terviews" is how every artist personality shows in the way they answer the questions. The questions were exactly the same for every artist so I would simply summarize their opinions on the topic as a whole. Now I chose three artists Cary Peppermint, Mez, and Tina LaPorta.

So as I said the purpose of the interview was to see the artists' opinions on exhibiting their work in a physical exhibit so the obvious first question was how they feel about turning net art into a physical medium. Cary Peppermint started a long and tedious paragraph that i had to read three times to try and comprehend where the point of that paragraph was, but apparently she was fairly satisfied with the Internet as a medium in and of itself without the need of ever going physical because in her opinion with the Internet being the living beast that it is, it gives her work the life she want s to put in it making her own work alive. Mez thought they dilute the property of net-works because they inhibit the work in a geographical location and physical space (least that what I made out from his old Skool version of 1337 (leet) he chose to speak in). Tina LaPorta Thought it would be interesting as long as the artist himself/herself intiated them.

Then They went on discussing the implications of having a physical exhibit of their work (will extend the work, or be another medium, how do they want it to be and what if they wanted to make it more experimental) Cary was all about integration between the physical and the digital, but not just leave the physical be a representation of the digital work but allow it to "live" like its Internet counterpart and "network" itself to the people, which is really not a bad idea although I have no idea how is that possible, she wanted her experimental gallery to represent destruction and even better to try to encourage it, a Part i personally liked because hey everyone likes to smash things into bits, hell there's a whole market dedicated into that it's called VIDEO GAMES. Anyway Mez seemed to also enjoy more the nature of his "Net-Wurk" in how it has a viral nature of spreading around the Internet. He thought though that adding the element of space in a physical exhibit would add more variables in his work making it more unpredictable and therefore keeps the critics guessing, his idea of an experimental gallery was utilizing a live connection that would make his work more interactive. Tina though thinks that the transformation of her work from Internet based into physical would be a remix of her work and not just a representation of it, her ideal exhibit was a live net performance and to make it experimental she would try to make remote participation leaving a trace of the event as a form of documentation.

For their exhibition catalogs cary wanted to go all out and exaggerate commercial advertising and commercialism in her catalogs with multiple languages mediums and formats, to her this is a form of "overexposure" that is also useful in archiving her work and be available for future research. Mez wanted his to be made out of old fashioned LED embedded screens, he said he wanted them in the PANS I have no Idea what the PANS are but old fashioned LED embedded screens seems like a cool idea. Tina wanted hers to be a website.

In terms of their individual work they were asked about how would they approach their physical audience differently than their online counterparts. cary said that to her, she considers her work as a performance that is an enactment of her living ideas aka a performance showing her different concepts. she calls that her faith in her performative process making her online performances "faith of greater distances" and her physical ones "faith of proximity". Mez on the other hand thinks there is a difference between his online audience and his physical ones. The online audience he says have more of an understanding of the medium and their interaction with the medium (the Internet) proves that they have that understanding. while the ones in a gallery space might not and the gallery itself might be the element that inhibits their interaction with the work as it is possible online. Tina basically mentioned that her physical presence was imperative in a physical exhibition, on the other hand her physical absence was as important in an online exhibition of her work.

An interesting topic indeed, these interviews opened my eyes to a new medium that was out there virtually unheard of at least to me till now. i heard about internet art but to me internet art was simply posting your artwork at personal websites or websites like cgsociety.org or deviantart.com the sort of online outlets i used myself both to expose my work and get my online artistic exposure. being a traditionalist the prestige of being in a gallery or a physical exhibit is more than amazing but it IS restrictive in terms of fiscal and physical inhibitions. online is a huge medium to get more and more exposure and the viral attributes of it make it even simpler to reach more audiences, because the online world is the only place where a bunch of guys having tea and crumpets in england can be checking a piece of artwork alongside a bunch of college kids on hallucinogens in california, while three japanese girls are printing a screen cap of the artpiece to hang it up on their walls, it is this kind of exposure that make the online medium such a powerful and universal medium, and it makes this medium also prone to illegal replication and dilution of a piece of work. you see an original art piece is valuable both in terms of the effort and value placed in the piece of work as well as its scarcity, while an online piece being readily available to anyone can be easily copied and pasted, which might also mean the artwork can be stolen and claimed by other people that want to bask in the glory of the original artist. So I think unless artist rights are more strongly established going online is really dangerous at first. But for established net artists like the ones interviewed "remixing" Their work to fit in a physical gallery is just a mere challenge to make it as successful as their online creations, and from their replies they seem to have pretty good ideas of transferring their work to our physical realm.

just in case you were wondering here are the three interviews :
Cary Peppermint : http://laudanum.net/cgi-bin/media.cgi?action=display&id=993983043
Mez : http://laudanum.net/cgi-bin/media.cgi?action=display&id=993982495
Tina LaPorta : http://laudanum.net/cgi-bin/media.cgi?action=display&id=993982766

Of Purpose and Reason

Ok, so in case you stumbled on this page by complete accident or by passing through an unidentified purple wormhole that smells like cheetos during a tachyon storm and popped up on the interweb by mistake on this glorious representation of how human beings like to say their minds even if no one cares, and post it blantly where everyone can see it, THIS IS A BLOG.

Now why would I endorse blogging the reason is simple, I am taking a course about the history and theory of digital art and we are required to blog about certain articles for grades, also it was about time I shared some input to the world.

Now that we got those introductions out of the way let's get down to business My name is Marwan Imam and from now on you shall know me as The Warman (which is a clever anagram of my first name, genius I know I get that allot) and This is The Warman's Mind.