One of the fundamental characteristics of digital art
is that is can be rapidly and cheaply reproduced without any degradation in
quality. There has long been an opinion in the artistic community that
reproduced images do not carry the same ambiance as the original. Some of this
belief is doubtless influenced by the quality of the reproduction. Many
artistic mediums do not lend themselves well to high quality reproduction. Yet
much of this conviction refers to the consciousness that a work is an original.
It refers to the perceived sensation of creativity, originality and substance
that the individual observer feels when viewing an original work of art.
As early as 1936 Walter Benjamin questioned the
intrinsic and artistic value of film, cinema and photographic reproductions
when he wrote "The
Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". In this essay he
refers to this perceived sensation as the “aura” of a particular object. He
defines this aura as “…the unique presence of a work of art, a historical or
natural object.” (Manovich, p. 171).
Benjamin believed that a copy is “…detached from the domain of tradition and
the original aura” of the original work. (U.
of Washington). He continues to state:
Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in
one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place
where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the
history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence (Benjamin).
It is Benjamin’s contention that a copy cannot carry
the same aura as an original. He seems to be comparing the viewing an original
work of art to viewing the unique beauty of nature when he states:
“…’If, while resting on a summer afternoon,
you follow with your eyes a mountain range on the horizon or a branch which
casts its shadow over you, you experience the aura of those mountains, of that
branch.’" (Benjamin)
The aura of an object is dependent on the uniqueness
of an object, the objects domain of tradition and the physical presence of the
object. Therefore a reproduction, even an exact reproduction, is inferior to
the original, yet its very existence depreciates the value of the original (U.
of Washington).
Anyone who has ever been to a museum or art gallery
would have to agree that Benjamin is correct in his assertion that an original
work of art has an aura of its own. Yet we must consider the fact that this new
media is entirely different from any artistic medium that has come before. It
may be possible that we need to reconsider our definition of “original artwork”
when we consider it in the context of cyberspace and the seemingly unlimited ability
of the Internet to deliver information worldwide.
It is clear that Benjamin’s opinions, written about
the characteristics of film and photography that enhance the reproduction
process, appear to apply to digital media, including the digital media of the
Internet. Both types of media are easily reproduced in seemingly infinite
numbers. The reproductions are identical to the original. These reproductions
can be viewed in places and times never intended for the original. Yet it is
obvious that nothing viewed online is an original by traditional definition. If
an image is uploaded to a server then downloaded to a PC to be viewed by the
end user, it is at best a third hand copy. We must realize that we view two
distinct types of art on the net. Art that was intended to be viewed online and
art that was intended to be viewed in some other environment.
This is not to imply that these two types art should
be separate from each other, nor should this statement be interpreted as an
attempt to condemn their reproduction and/or use on any medium that promotes
appreciation of beauty and artistic creativity. Much of the art that is created to be displayed on the internet
work very well when applied to other mediums. Art created on many of the more
traditional mediums present well when digitized and displayed in cyberspace. We
do not need to visit the Sistine Chapel to
see it is beautiful. We can see pictures of it in books, movies, print, digital
video and online. Doubtless the aura and inspiration of this classic structure
is best experienced with a visit to the Vatican. That is not an arguable point.
We are not comparing the differences between real and virtual. We are only
demonstrating that art and beauty can be appreciated in a variety ways. We can
view the Sistine Chapel online but we will not experience the sense awe and
inspiration that being there inspires. This is because it was not created to be
viewed online. It was built to be admired and used in its place. It is doubtful
that anything in cyberspace will ever compare to an actual visit to the Sistine
Chapel. It can be seen online but it should not be compared to art that was
intended to be viewed online, nor does it seem correct that art created for the
internet should be compared to the Sistine Chapel or other traditional artistic
mediums.
We must consider that Internet art has an originality
all its own. Much of the material that we view on the net was written for the
net. When it is viewed online it is viewed in the context and environment for
which it was created. If an image or a video was created and designed to be
viewed on the internet is it not in its original context? It only stands to
reason that if art created for the Internet is viewed on the Internet then it
is being seen on its natural medium, in its intended and original environment.
Many would argue that Internet art generally does not seem have the same aura
or presence that we normally associate with other artistic mediums. This
opinion may, in part, be due to the fact that NET.ART is viewed on the limited
setting of a computer monitor. Obviously it is far more difficult to achieve a
significant presence from a desktop computer than it is in the setting of a
gallery, theatre or other venue that is intended to enhance the viewing
experience. Yet I would argue that NET.ART does have an aura. This aura is
distinctly different from traditional art, and perhaps more difficult to
discern and describe, but it still exists. Never the less, this does not affect
the originality of Internet art. NET.ART is an art form onto itself with its
own unique characteristics and charisma.
