The here and now of the original underlies the concept of its authenticity, and on the latter in turn is founded the idea of a tradition which has passed object down as the same, identical thing to the present day. The whole sphere of authenticity eludes technological-and of course not only technological-reproduction. But whereas the authentic work retains its full authority in the face of a reproduction made by hand, which it brands a forgery, this is not the case with techno- logical reproduction. The reason is twofold. First, technological repro- duction is more independent of the original than is manual reproduction. For example, in photography it can bring out aspects of the original that are accessible only to the lens (which is adjustable and can easily change viewpoint) but not to the human eye; or it can use certain processes, such as enlargement or slow motion, to record images which escape natural optics altogether. This is the first reason. Second, technological reproduc- tion can place the copy of the original in situations which the original it- self cannot attain. Above ali, it enables the original to meet the recipient halfway, whether in the form of a photograph or in that a gramophone record. The cathedral leaves its site to be received in the studio of an art lover; the choral work performed in an auditorium or in the open air is enjoyed in a private room.
These changed circumstances may leave the artwork’s other properties untouched, but they certainly devalue the here and now of the artwork. And although this can apply not only to art but (say) to a landscape moving past the spectator in a film., in the work of art this process touches on a highly sensitive core, more vulnerable than that of any natural object. That core is its authenticity. The authenticity of a thing is the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it from its origin on, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relating to it. Since the historical testimony is founded on the physical duration, the former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction, in which the physical duration plays no part. And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object, the weight it derives from tradition. One might focus these aspects of the artwork in the concept of the aura, and go on to say: what withers in the age of the technological reproducibility of the work of art is the latter’s aura. This process is symptomatic; its significance extends far beyond the realm of art. It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in lJermitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced. These two processes lead to a massive upheaval in the domain of objects handed down from the past-a shattering of tradition which is the reverse side of the present crisis and renewal of humanity. Both processes are intimately related to the mass movements of our day. (Walter Benjamin, from The Age of Art In Its Technological Reproduction; His essay begins with the following quote: The true is what he can; the false is what he wants. -MADAME DE DURAS!
I don’t check into my Facebook page everyday. I rarely check into my MySpace musician page. Never do i drop into my LinkedIn. I rarely look at my Twitter feed. If I could experience some payoff due to twittering, I’d twitter.
Something like 50% of my time ‘in email’ is spent deleting spam from my 14 year old original email account. The four email discussion groups dearest to my heart have each in their different ways become mostly inactive. One other list I monitor has seen its traffic slow down 90%.
I read one forum–the Pedal Steel Guitar Forum–regularly. I drop into Brainstorms every now and then. I check out my various blog feed readers regularly too. I pay for the privilege of not being active on Ken Wilber’s Integral+Life.
My cell phone is a good way to communicate with me, yet I can count my phone correspondents on one hand.
I have three personal blogs and participate here. On my own blogs I post in flurries and back-date posts.
***
Although I long for the intellectual, soulful, creative, jockeying and collaboration which issue from people engaging each other via various internet modalities, what has transpired over the past two years is, as I view it, a substantial compression and truncation of the–as it were–”conversation.”
A good friend posed a philosophical question to me via my Facebook in-box. However, it made a reference to something somebody had mentioned to them. When I asked what else this third party had said, because I needed more information, I was told, “That’s all they said.” In any event, my Facebook in-box is not the way to ask me a question of any sort.
People pass tweets to me. I’m waiting for a tweet that isn’t a kernal, husk, glib pointer toward some hidden aperçu.
***
Recently, having re-read almost all of Ivan Illich, and bits of Adorno and Benjamin, I got to thinking about the illusion of autonomy in the context of net life. This fits into my developing, albeit inchoate, consideration of the semantic web, cloud applications–what is termed Web 3.0. It is is especially interesting to read how information is to be fit to user predilection in real time.
Is this the result of machine heuristics being maneuvered so as to intervene in my own?
From the recently rendered
About Page to ND2.0.
Are we not somewhat in the context-free zone of the territories given by the post-post-modern free play of industrial solipsism and its committed end of histories?
