Reflective Practice Essay

Essay 3:

Rationale

The overarching module theme for this COP1 submission was to examine the tension between analogue versus digital. This was explored visually analysing 3 LP album covers (The Beatles Revolver, Joy Division’s Unknown Pleasures and The Cure’s Wish) theoretically through the evolving ideas of Benjamin (1936), Berger (1972), Douglas (1991) and Taylor (2009) and practically through constructing a visual journal.

The theoretical texts have guided a synthesis of ideas which was applied visually to examine analogue versus digital reproduction visually. Everything in the journal is a conversation between analogue and digital. Sometimes the drawing tools and materials are central and sometimes secondary to the meaning; always exploring the tension between the two methods.

Handwriting the analyses of the critics helped identify key, clear issues which could then be explored in the journal. This enabled visual links to be made between the written understanding of the texts and the images in the journal. Breaking down the texts generated stages of understanding. This process (read, select quotes, analyse quotes, write a summative paragraph and tie them together) was crucial and enabled a way of working in which ideas could be connected and developed.

In the analysis of the LP covers the ideas collected from the theorists were used to explore how and why these images were constructed. The task involved looking at the descriptive elements of the image in order to understand them ie. how it’s built up, the background to it and then linking this to the discussions about digital and analogue ‘aura’ raised by the theorists. For example, the analysis of Unknown Pleasures showed how the combination of the digital image and its analogue reworking created something less perfect and exact; possible to see the metaphorical maker’s hand in the image. The visual message of the LP cover can be explained by the contextual analysis which showed the messiness, change and vibrancy of the punk era. It was possible to show how the album could be connected with the theories studied.

Each of the key theorists’ ideas were explored in the visual journal. These will be examined in a critical analysis of an experiment, which formed part of this journal.

The experiment

The experiment followed this process:

This produced a hand-constructed concertina – Figure 1 - within the journal (6). A printed picture from the internet (1&2) appears on page one (3). Individuals aged 18-28, not necessarily art students, were asked to make their own version of this scanner (4). Each was given the same range of pens to choose from (5). Each reproduction of the scanner reflected the conversation between digital and analogue reproductions.

Analysis of two images

Figure 2a links to Taylor’s argument that art has become accessible to anyone “creativity seems to resonate with our young, eclectic creative individuals today (who can all self-publish with ease)” (Taylor 2009). The ‘artist’ actually studies Midwifery but is creative as a cake decorator.

Figure 2a captures the digital nature of the scanner through its visual literacy. The artist chose a gold pen, which is glittery and captures and portrays the shine on the glass. They used darker colours to represent the darker/shaded areas of the photograph of the scanner. They also illustrated the weight and solidity of the scanner through leaving no empty spaces, filling the drawing with blocks of colour.

Figure 2b was drawn by an Animation student. This resulted in a stylised reproduction of the scanner through simplification of its chosen important features, limited to the outlines using their choice of a fine-liner which is their normal drawing tool. Line quality is an important feature of this image and the artist used a compact line to create strength for the hinge of the scanner. Zigzagging portrayed the shine of the glass and compact, therefore dark, lines showed shadow.

Theoretical links to the experiment

Walter Benjamin valued uniqueness, justifying its importance, ‘by making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence’ (Benjamin, 1936). When creating analogue reproductions, as in this experiment, a unique existence is embedded within each reproduction - something that is lost in digital reproduction. He then says ‘in principle a work of art has always been reproducible’ (Benjamin, 1936) however that the thing ‘which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art’ (Benjamin, 1936). This makes me question if each drawing of the scanner has less aura because it has been reproduced many times.

John Berger thought ‘reproduction makes the meanings of works of art ambiguous’ (Berger 1972) and therefore this makes originals open to interpretation. The experiment portrayed this through different choices of visual language per image. Also Berger believed ‘the days of pilgrimage are over’ (Berger 1972). This is illustrated through an image of a scanner taken from the internet and now a concertina journal. Because the images are collated, Berger might challenge that this enhances the “unique original meaning” (Berger 1972) because “everything around it confirms and consolidates its meaning”? (Berger 1972) Therefore, how does this affect the aura and originality of each reproduction? Is each image fuller of originality because it is next to another image that is also original or does it make each reproduction less full of aura because there are multiple other reproductions?

David Douglas beautifully describes the analogue process to be ‘a wave breaking on a beach, breaking over and over but never precisely in the same form’ (Douglas 1991, p.382). This experiment visualises this metaphor as each drawing of the scanner is like each wave, whilst each interpretation is different. The analogue representations of the scanner are individual and interpretations but the original image remains the original. Douglas also questions whether aura the first time we see an image is a ‘fine-grained sensitivity to the unique qualities of every copy’ (Douglas 1991, p385) making one appreciate the subtle differences within each reproduction.

Phil Taylor believed that everyone can be an artist ‘[we] can all self-publish with ease’ (Taylor 2009), which means that every piece of art is valid and portrays its own qualities. I therefore included a range of ‘artists’. Taylor also wrote that analogue is ‘a draw towards the more intimate, and perhaps authentic, relationship an artist can have (…) located within the analogue realm (Taylor 2009)’. This experiment shows that creativity, individuality and expression can be portrayed through analogue drawings.

In conclusion

This experiment linked research with the theorists studied. It questions if aura is lost through the nature of reproduction, explores what originality means and where it is found specifically through individuals’ visual language.

Figures

Figure 1 

Figure 2 a 

Figure 2b

Bibliography

Benjamin, W (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Trans Zohn, H. Arendt, H.  (Eds.) Germany: Schocken/Random House

Berger, J (1972) Ways of Seeing, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Davis, D. (1995) The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Leonardo, 28(5), pp. 381-386.

Taylor, P. (2009) The Lo-Fi Phenomenon - Analogue versus Digital in the Creative Process. Faculty of Art: University of Brighton.