Triangulation Essay

‘The alchemy of analogue is more unpredictable, and therefore more alluring’ (Benjamin 1936)

Essay 1:

The issue

Benjamin’s piece of writing asks the question is analogue more alluring than digital? In order to explore this question the following four texts are investigated drawing on four different perspectives spanning a period of time: Benjamin (1936), Berger (1972), Douglas (1991) and Taylor (2011). Breaking down the title quote it is important to understand the key words. The Oxford Guide to the English Language describes alchemy as a ‘medieval form of chemistry, seeking to turn other metals into gold’. Before the discovery of scientific knowledge about metals, alchemy enticed people to explore its mysterious ‘art’, with some finding it addictive. This relates to allure: to ‘entice or attract’. In this context, this refers to the way people are drawn to the aesthetic of analogue creations.

In trying to create the valuable metal of gold without knowing the process, alchemists created unexpected outcomes. Some of these were however useful, for example creating a European form of porcelain (de Waal, 2015). The author used the term unpredictable to explain that, with hand crafted/analogue things, there is an element of the unknown (like with alchemy) as part of the process, which for the crafter and the viewer, can be exciting. For example, with printing, an artist can design something carefully and precisely. However, when the elements of: a printing press, multiple prints, ink and reversing are combined these variables make it impossible to predict the outcome. Each print becomes unique and people value this as interesting and attractive. This quote refers to the way people like hand-crafted things because they are not exact and are unique. To this day, in a digital age, people find the craft ethos attractive.

Reproduction: The rise of the digital

When Benjamin wrote ‘The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ in the 1930s, he was one of the key intellectuals of that time. Benjamin was interested in the politics associated with art, especially significant as he was writing in Germany whilst Hitler was Chancellor: He was also interested in the impact art has on society. Benjamin asserts that art has a uniqueness, an ‘aura’ that can never be reproduced. Although he believed that the original was the source and most important artefact, he could appreciate that there were some advantages to reproduction, for example making art more accessible for people.

In terms of methods of reproduction, up to just before when John Berger was born in 1926, paintings were the main medium for the expression of art. These were overtaken by photography and Berger went further to explore moving images as videos. In ‘Ways of Seeing’ he analysed the way men and women are represented in art. He pointed out how, historically, women have been objectified by men, with women presented to be looked at by men who made images of them. He was also interested in how photography changed art and the meaning and experiences which surround art.

Douglas’s article ‘The Work of art in the age of digital reproduction’ 1991 discusses the uses of analogue and digital means of reproduction. This made a direct play on Benjamin’s title, showing he clearly wished to converse with Benjamin. Douglas challenged Benjamin’s whole idea of ‘aura’, questioning if aura could only be aassociated with the original or if it could also be attained each time someone personally saw something new: ‘here is where the aura resides - not in the thing itself but in the originality of the moment when we see, hear, read, repeat, revise’. Referring to digital reproductions, he talked about quality, such that it doesn’t matter about the quantity produced, as long as no quality is lost.

In this article Douglas explained how analogue art has become versatile due to digitalisation. He argued that replicas have become very clever as there are now so many ways of editing. Because of these possibilities it has become difficult to make the distinction between whether something is analogue or not. Furthermore, he argued that although digitalisation means that things can be identically repeated, there remains a beauty in the analogue. He compares it to a wave - each time the wave breaks it breaks slightly differently - referring to its unpredictability (Douglas 1991, p.382).

Phil Taylor published the article ‘Lo Fi Phenomena – Analogue Versus Digital in the Creative Process’ in 2011, which articulates that everyone can become an artist now it is so easy to create high quality artefacts at home. He explains that people are impatient and like digitalisation because of its immediacy, its accessibility and the way it can be made anytime, no longer needing to be linked to particular events/visits. This links closely to Berger’s view that ‘For the first time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free’ (Berger, 1972).

A challenge to what makes something original

The common themes from all four commentators are: authenticity; aura (although expressed in different ways); the ease of mechanization and potential for reproductions to have value in themselves. They don’t all agree on the meaning of the original, however. Douglas, defines original as the first time you come across something. For Douglas the first time you see something would be the time when you appreciate its aura. He argues against Benjamin and says ‘what begins to emerge in the first digital decade is a fine grained sensitivity to the unique qualities of every copy’ (Douglas 1991, p385).

The title quote can be applied to the critics’ viewpoints. Whereas Benjamin believes the location of a piece of art makes it authentic, such that when it’s separated it has a different function, Berger says that digital distorts the original, changing the way we think about it. Berger concludes that the reproduction is fundamentally different to when you see the analogue in its original ‘home’. Because digital art is immediate and easier to find, Taylor explains that this discourages us from seeing the originals in ‘their home’ (Berger 1972), or location. Berger agrees, believing ‘the days of pilgrimage’ to art venues are over (Berger 1972). Taylor argues, however, that it’s a good thing that art is everywhere and can be seen and accessed by everyone, whereas Berger concludes that this changes the way we see art and, so, somehow we have lost something.

In conclusion

Benjamin argues for the unique ‘allure’ and unpredictable authenticity of original analogue art, others, in particular those exploring the contribution of digital methods like Douglas and Taylor, claim that digitalisation can allow new unique and enticing possibilities for art, beyond any analogue so called ‘original’.

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.

Rock, M. (1996) The Designer as Author, Eye, 20(5).

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

De Waal, E. (2015) The White Road. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.