JOS DE MUL SYNOPSIS

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jos de Mul - '

Media used as means of presenting information, are not innocent means. Media play a crucial role in the configuration of the human mind and experience. Media are interfaces that mediate not only between us and the world (designation), but also between us and our fellow man (communication), and between us and ourselves (self-understanding). Artistic media are interfaces that not only structure the imagination of the artist, but the work of art and the aesthetic reception as well

The thesis De mul is defending in this paper is, firstly, that in the age of digital recombination, the database constitutes the ontological model of the work of art and, secondly, that in this transformation the exhibition value is being replaced by what we might call manipulation value. Walter Benjamin’s essay deals with a fundamental ontological change, a transformation of human experience, closely connected with the mechanization of the reproduction of nature and culture. It deals with the digital manipulation of nature and culture that characterizes the present ‘age of informatization‘.

Mechanical reproduction represents something new. Photography made mechanical reproduction the dominant cultural interface. Before the original work of art was characterized by uniqueness, and singularity in time and space. It is here and now. Its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. According to Benjamin the unique existence of the work of art determines the history to which it is subject throughout the time of its existence, for example, the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. Because of this aura, the unique work of art can easily become an object of a magical or religious cult. “(…)the unique value of the ‘authentic’ work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value.” Benjamin introduces the concept of cult value, and he connects it with its aura. “Distance is the opposite of closeness. The essentially distant object is the unapproachable one. Unapproachability is indeed a major quality of the cult image.” The cult image remains distant, it does not matter how close you are. If you stand before the Mona Lisa, you still cannot touch it’s Aura, it is embedded by a frame. The auratic work of art acts as an interface between the physical materiality of the work of art and its meaningful history.

The auratic work of art can be comceived as a symbol. The destruction of an auratic work of art is generally understood as an act of blasphemy – independent of whether it has a religious content or not. The Aura is not only implied to historic art works, it applies to nature as well.

Benjamin argues that mechincal reproduction means a loss of Aura. “By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.” But De Mul argues that in fact it creates new dimenions to experience the Aura. It brings objects closer. Uniqueness and permanence of the auratic object are being replaced by transitoriness and reproducibility. In the media of mechanical reproduction the whole distinction between original and copy loses its meaning. Making an artwork ‘orginal’ can be done in means of signatures etc. But in fact these are seen as cheats, who only confirm the loss of Aura. What gives significance to the copies of artworks is their cult value, which gives way to exhibition value, which is precisely situated in the endless reproduction of the copies.

Mechanical reproduction discloses the world in a new way, bringing along both new opportunities and new dangers. Because of our current digital world, the work of art from Benjamin has been used as reference material in many cases. It is important not to misinterpret digital reproduction with mechanical reproduction, and for this reason we use the term ‘Digital recombination’. The computer has qualities which justify the claim that it represents a new stage in the development of media.

In Jos de Mul’s thesis he defends that on some level all media art works shar some basic characteristics. This ABCD of computing consists of the operations Add, Browse, Change, and Destroy. Together these four operations – which correspond to the structured query language (SQL) commands Insert, Select, Update, and Delete – constitute the dynamic elements of what we might call a database ontology.With the four basic operations, in principle all possible combinations of records can be retrieved. Dataa elements can be constantly combined, decombined, and recombined. Physical ‘flat’ databases are not that flexible, they are fixed, and if updated, demand a big repodruction, and/or are time consuming.

From the 1950s on new types of electronic databases have been developed, the hierarchical model in the 1950s, the network model in the 1960s and the relational model in the 1970s. Relational databases are extremely flexible, because they enable the users to define queries that were not anticipated by the database designers. Database applications nowadays span virtually the entire range of computer software, ranging from mainframe databases for administrative purposes and multimedia encyclopedias on cd-roms to search engines, wikis and other Web 2.0 applications on the Internet. Databases often function as material metaphors. Examples of these are biotechnological databases used for genetic engineering, or databases implemented in industrial robots, enabling mass customization. The database functions as a conceptual metaphor which structures our experience of ourselves and of the world.

In the age of digital databases, everything – nature and culture alike – becomes an object for recombination and manipulation. Our world is increasingly being populated with life forms created with database technologies. [In the case of Eduard Kac’s fluo rabbit, the question was also raised whether this ‘work’ can be called a work of art. In this sense the rabbit provokes similar questions as, about ninety years ago, Duchamp‘s ready-mades, such as L.H.O.O.Q., a cheap postcard-sized reproduction of the Mona Lisa, upon which Duchamp drew a mustache and a goatee]

There is no answer to wether an object of art now, will be an object of art later. An object that was once an instrument of magic could later come to be recognized as a work of art. In the same way. Whereas in the age of mechanical reproduction it was already becoming difficult to distinguish between the artistic and non-artistic functions of the reproduction, in the age of digital recombination, the distinction seems to get blurred altogether. In the age of digital recombination, the value of an object depends on the extent of its openness for manipulation. The aesthetic quality of a work strongly depends on the elegance of the structure of the database and its user interface.

Power, political power included, is becoming increasingly dependent on the ability to manipulate information. In the age of mechanical reproduction the success of political leaders became increasingly dependent on their exhibition value. In the age of digital manipulation, politicians are dependent on their manipulation value. Digitally recombined works of art are not political per se, it challenges its recipients by directing their attention to the medium itself, and therefore reflect on the politics of manipulation.

In the end, we might become the ultimate object of digital manipulation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________