ThemigrationoftheAura

The migration of the aura or how to explore the original through its fac similes

Bruno Latour & Adam Lowe Switching Codes, University of Chicago Press (2010)

Even from the title we may assume that the following text will connect with Benjamin and the aura of works of art

GENERAL OUTLINE the text raised this problematic of why is it so difficult to accept the notion of the copy and the fac simile. It raises also a disagreement with walter benjamins theory about aura and originality and underlines the fact that copies can create new layers of originality.

the authors are based in two paradigms, the reproduction of Veronese’s Nozze di Cana, a huge framed digitally reproduced_ painting that has the bad luck of being hung opposite the tiny Mona Lisain the Louvre but was alsoexhibited in venice , and the bad restoration of Holbein's The viewer of Ambassadors recalls her poster of the painting, its so similar she wonders if the painting is the original or not (shok).But she knows that the old original has given its place to the copy

the original has been turned into a copy of itself,maybe looking like a cheap copy

The text also refers to the condition of placing works in different curatorial or exhibtion context and explores how the meaning of the painting is changing and causes a terrible cognitive dissonance. (Why does it have such a huge gilt frame? Why are there doors on both sides? Why is it hanging so low, also in venice there was a label" A facsimile" )

Is it possible that the Venice version, although it clearly states that it is a facsimile, is actually more original than the Paris original??…". Without question, for her, the aura of the original had migrated from Le Louvre to San Giorgio. No question about it, the obsession of the age is for the original version. If so much energy is devoted to the search for the original — for archeological and marketing reasons— it is because the possibility of making copies has never been so open-ended the intensity of the search for the original depends on the amount of passion and the number of interests triggered by its copies.

No copies, no original. somehow here the copy defines the original and not contrary to common belief- the original defines the copy.

The text also proposes that in the question —"But this is just a facsimile"—, we should refuse to decide too quickly when considering the value of either the original or its reproduction. Thus, The real phenomenon to be accounted is the whole assemblage made up of one —or several— original(s) together with the retinue of its continually re-written biography. It is not a case of "either or" but of "and, and"

(uses the metaphor of the Nile in order to support that "Is it not because the Nile ends up in such a huge delta that the century-old search for its sources had been so thrilling? ")

FAC SIMILES are a frutifull way to approach originals and to check the limits of what originality really is

he also underlines the origin of the word copy which come from Copious and designates a source of abundance

The author refers also to Homers Iliad. if this work had been abandonden in the small village of Asia Minor Homer would not be considered as a great autohr of such great originality. And its its also critical here to say that we dont know who really Homer was and his existence cant be specified. But the work itself had lived and is living throuhg its copies which all make us admire the original work.

if we stop reproducing and interprating, the original is in danger. if the copies stop beeeing reproduced maybe we lose the original

CONTRARY TO BENJAMIN AND HIS AURA to Latour a work of art has its own trajectory,or we can say its own career.

IMPORTANT PART is when he moves the question from Is it original or copy to IS IT BAD OR GOOD REPRODUCED??he argues that a bad reproduection drives original to dissapearnce but good trigers more copies and goes on continussly , so he finds the quality of reproduction a critical factor for the original to survive and for a work of art original means to be the ORIGIN in a long lineage

he wants to clarify why its so easy to raise questions in the quality of the entire trajectory in the perfmoring arts but not in visual arts like painting,or like in arhitecture or design. for example if we listen to an opera or a song, to play it is actually to replay it and we dont have anyproblem to say that its a magnificent work of art. So a good presentation of this work is a moment in its career. So its what we experience with the work in a particular moment what counts and not its reseblance with the original .In this moment the work gaines a new level of originality! In performance art, the aura keeps migrating and can come back suddenly… or disappear altogether But after many bad reproductions the aura can be dead. But its very difiicult to say that for a painting for example.

differential of resistance among all segments of the trajectory

He recalls Benjamin and mechanical reproduction to explain in technical terms that in performing artsnnew versions are easily done and well accepted because they composed by segments made from the same stuff and that for us there is not such matter of originality bar rather of a bad or good version. But with a painting things are different because its so static, framed and can belong to a collector or an institution and seems so easier to reproduce which reduces the value of the quality of the copy, and this is why the aura seems definitely attached to one version only and has not to do with the works inherent quality or more material side but rather with the techniques and the effort used for each segment of its trajectory.

"===>Before being able to defend itself for re-enacting the original well or badly, a facsimile is discredited beforehand because it is associated with a gap in techniques of reproduction, a gap which is based on a misunderstanding of photography as an index of reality<<<<<<<<

so we said about the THE **differential of resistance among all segments of the trajectory**. What we do is that we modify this DIFFERENTIAL we said before, which becomes easier in digital age and its not limited to performance art which can be seen if we look at the copying of the manuscripts,--****-Before printing, the marginal cost of producing one more copy was exactly identical to that of producing the penultimate one —a situation to which we are actually returning now with digital copies. in the monasteris eveything was a copy and no copyist said that this is original or this is copy****here again the auvra is able to travel from one form to the other but can also be lost *** But after the invention of printing the marginal cost for a copy became negligible compared with the cost and effort for the manuscript.Then an enormous distance was introduced and the AUTOGRAPH MANUAL became the ORIGINAL in distance with its copies.*****

Benjamin confused the notion of "mechanical reproduction" with the inequality in the techniques employed along a trajectory No matter how mechanical a reproduction is, once there is no huge gap in the process of production between version n and version n+n,

Is it possible to imagine the same migration of the aura in the reproduction or the reinterpretation of, say, a painting? In common sense there is a stubborn persistence that makes the association of a place, an original and some aura impossible to separate. He argues that painting and perforcamnce have not that radical differences, a painting needs to be reproduced (this includes from restoration to reframing and from positioning in diferent narratives, contexts etc) because if not kind of dies. (literaly like in a fire or because time will affect its material etc) "For a work of art to survive, it requires an ecology just as complex as one needed to maintain the natural character of a natural park." SO IT THE NECESITY OF REPRODUCTION IS ACCEPTED WE MOVE FROM THE QUESTION ABOUT ORIGINALITY ON THE QUESTION ABOUT GOOD OR BAD REPRODUCTION

AND TO RETURN IN THE 2 WORKS OF ART WE SAW IN THE BEGINNING, =They both rely on reproduction —this is a necessity of existence — BUT IN HOLBEINS AMBSASSARORS reproduction makes the original disappear for ever while NOZZE DI CANA ;S reproductions addsto the original version by offering it new dimensions

((how originality is added? by bringing the new version to its original location the The cognitive dissonance has to do with the loss of meaning tha occured the distance in the meaning via reproduction))

He tries to prevent us from oversimlifing digital techniques and their consequences because this mistake happened also to benjamin and mechanical reproduction. theres is of course a matter of respect and understanging, many reproductions can be slavish, but this does not depend on digital technologies but in what features of them we select to use and which to ignore. THE HUMAN FACTOR, THE SELECTIONS

"No doubt,facsimiles have a bad reputation —people assimilate them with a photographic rendering of the original— and digital is associated with an increase in virtuality.

So, when we speak of "digital facsimiles", we are certainly looking for trouble"

Digital facsimiles are introducing many new twists into the century old trajectory of works of art. There is nothing especially "virtual" in digital techniques —and actually there is nothing entirely digital in digital computers either! bUT Things are entirely different when digital techniques are only one moment in the move from one material entity