News:
  • Women Directors 2021
  • Ma Rainey Sings the Blues with Passion and Rage
  • Kareem Tayyar and the Complexities of Joy
  • LIFE AFTER BIRTH APPLAUDS IMPEACHMENT NUMBER 2
  • Poets on Craft: Stephen Kampa and Chelsea Woodward
  • Signs and the City
  • Contact us
  • About
    • What is Cultural Weekly?
    • Advertise
    • Contributors
    • Masthead
    • Subscribe
    • Submissions: Write for us
    • Cultural Weekly Style & Formatting Guide
  • Contact us
  • About
    • What is Cultural Weekly?
    • Advertise
    • Contributors
    • Masthead
    • Subscribe
    • Submissions: Write for us
    • Cultural Weekly Style & Formatting Guide
Cultural Weekly logo
  • Film
  • TV + Web
  • Poetry
  • Art
  • Architecture
  • Literature
  • Theatre
  • Music
  • Dance
  • Tech
  • Lifestyle
  • Food
  • Film
  • TV + Web
  • Poetry
  • Art
  • Architecture
  • Literature
  • Theatre
  • Music
  • Dance
  • Tech
  • Lifestyle
  • Food

The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction: Memes and Marxist Essays

By Luke Hawkins on April 20, 2017 in Art, TV + Web

Click Here To View Comments

For over a hundred years, the ability to replicate works of art has increased due to the accelerated development of certain mechanical then digital technologies. With this, the appetite for reproducible works has grown in both artist and consumer.

Digital technology has offered nearly every industry a global stage, shop window and marketplace, and the art world is included. Illustrators, painters, photographers and anyone wanting to display their work effectively has to give themselves an online presence. This means slapping copyright symbols and watermarks across their work to protect it as they see it as a valuable work of art – this valuation is not shared by all who post content online.

landscape

Digital art: Moonlit Landscape with a View of the New Amstel River and Castle Kostverloren; Aert van der Neer (Dutch, 1603/1604 – 1677); 1647. The “original” is oil on panel; 57.5 × 89.9 cm (22 5/8 × 35 3/8 in.). This reproduction is made of electrons and pixels, and it is sized to fit your screen.

The question of whether artwork loses value through reproduction then re-emerges. In his essay, The Work of Art in the age of Mechanical Reproduction, Marxist philosopher and essayist, Walter Benjamin professed his belief in the importance of an original work of art’s aura:

“The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.”

The importance of a unique existence to the public in the modern day could be questioned. Benjamin went on to posit the development of a certain perception from the mass audience.

“Every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness, its reproduction… 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.”

In the age of instant gratification through digital technology, it could be said that the audience of any medium is indifferent to the fact that what they see or hear is a duplicate, just as long as they have it immediately at hand.

When an image becomes less about a personal, interactive experience, the attachment between art and viewer becomes more tenuous.

Photography was seen as the beginning of reproducible visual art. However, the camera film roll and printed image were at least tangible pieces, unlike an image on a screen. Photographer Daniel White described the processes and sensations that are being diminished through viewing artwork purely online.

“When you view an artwork in a gallery setting you share an attachment with the whole experience. When you scroll online and come across the artwork you went to see in some gallery then it can become a numb sensation; it becomes another image lost in the thousands of images that populate the ever growing archive of the internet… The social interaction of being able to share thoughts and ideas with one another over an artwork is something that is lost when viewing an artwork online.”

Daniel White

Daniel White, Contestants 1. Reproduced with kind permission of the artist.

Images of famous artworks and shared photography are one way in which stills are being shared but there is an altogether less substantial form of viral images.

It is stills that are likely the most reproduced images online thanks in part to memes. Memes by their very nature, and going by their etymology (derived from the Greek mimeme and first coined, bizarrely, by Richard Dawkins), that are there to be reproduced. What was once live-action puppetry then gets committed to film, a still from the film is taken, text is added and you end up with megabytes worth of Kermits. With each change of medium, the warmth of Jim Henson’s craftsmanship grows colder until the viewership is left with a ubiquitous replica of an image- a picture that, in the future, will be in Kermit’s attic rotting and gnarling further for each of his debauched sins.

Memes have become a pseudo-medium of their own; an image that invites people to make their own slight edits to the superimposed snowclone jokes- reproduction is encouraged. This is where the idea of reproduced work losing value moves from visual pieces into other media- namely comedy.

In the world of written comedy—screen or stand-up—anything that comes close to a reproduced joke is heavily criticised. Comedians are expected to “burn” their own material whenever they use it in any medium so as not to repeat it. Using material similar to others is a comedic cardinal sin. YouTuber Kain Carter has been found guilty of thieving from the late, great Patrice O’Neal; Amy Schumer also regularly has the “hack” label thrown her way.

While it is important that art is accessible, the permission audiences give “creators” to recycle and even plagiarise material encourages the production of unoriginal, ignorable, disposable art.

As art, in any form, carries within its quiddities a documenting of immediate, personal feelings and experiences, it is imperative that original artworks are experienced and not just observed.

In his essay, Benjamin references French poet, Paul Valéry’s work, The Conquest of Ubiquity, obviously realising the timelessness of his words.

“Just as water, gas, and electricity are brought into our houses from far off to satisfy our needs in response to minimal effort, so we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign.”

With this we have a prediction of transitory artworks; pieces that, through coding and cookies remain digitally permanent yet are casually forgettable for the audience—disappearing at the simple movement of the hand.

Top image: Daniel White, Contestants 2. Reproduced with kind permission of the artist.

Click Here To View Comments

Tagsartdigitalimagerymarxismtheory

Previous Story

Dance Camera West’s 16th Annual Dance Media Film Festival

Next Story

You don’t want to mess with them

About the author

Luke Hawkins

Luke Hawkins

Based in the west of Scotland, Luke Hawkins has been writing features, reviews, previews and Q&As, fuelled only by the magnetism of the rejuvenated art and music scene in Glasgow. Having studied at the City of Glasgow College, he has been published in student rags and national mags.

Related Posts

  • Brantingham on Brantingham: The Art of Ann Brantingham

    By John Brantingham
    When I met Ann in our early twenties, she...
  • Zoomsgiving

    By Adam Leipzig
    I have always been a pre-planner. That’s...
  • Critiquing Art While Fostering Creativity: With Experienced Artist John Kissick  

    By Our Friends
    Whether you’re an artist, student, or...
  • Rediscovering David Park, Bay Area Realist

    By Stephen West
    One of the best things museums do is to...

Support Our Friends

Follow Us

Join Our Mailing List

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @CulturalWeekly

Comments

  • maurice amiel maurice amiel
    A Case Against New Year’s Resolutions
    Here is an interesting new voice: candid,...
    1/14/2021
  • Matthew R. Matthew R.
    A Taste of Gypsy Boots
    Thank you Gypsy, for being brave in your new...
    1/8/2021
  • maurice amiel maurice amiel
    Bye Bye 2020 … a mute testimony
    given the events at the US Capitol of January 6th...
    1/7/2021

New

  • Never Been Suspicious Of Buying Instagram Likes? Think Again
  • One a Kind Gift Ideas For Couples
  • Women Directors 2021
  • FIVE PLUS ANDY & JERRY & MORE
  • Support the Jack Grapes Poetry Prize

Tags

art dance film Los Angeles music photography poem poems poetry tomorrow's voices today

Like us

Please Help

Donate

Who are we?

Cultural Weekly is a place to talk about our creative culture with passion, perspective and analysis – and more words than “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.” Our mission is to draw attention to our cultural environment, illuminate it, and make it ... read more

Site map

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Contributors
  • Cultural Weekly Style & Formatting Guide
  • Food
  • Home
  • Masthead
  • Privacy Policy/Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Submission Form
  • Submissions: Write for us
  • Subscribe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Thank You

Links

Adam Leipzig
Entertainment Media Partners
This Is Crowd
CreativeFuture
Plastic Oceans Foundation
Arts & Letters Daily
Alltop
Alexis Rhone Fancher
Jack Grapes
Ethan Bearman
Writ Large Press

Mailing List

* indicates required


  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy/Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Contact us
Cultural Weekly is the digital magazine and public platform of Next Echo Foundation. DONATE HERE.
Copyright © 2010-2020 by Adam Leipzig. All Rights Reserved.