Final Excerpt #1

First the replica of a physical object.  If there are hundreds of thousands of something that is produced, are any of them unique or original?  Some would say no, while others would say yes.  For those that say no, if there are thousands of the exact same object, lets say a teddy bear, then no single teddy bear is unique.  But for those that say yes, they understand how experiences and personal attachment can turn a mass produced teddy bear into a unique and one-of-a-kind teddy bear.  If someone were to lose their one-of-a-kind teddy bear, even if you could buy the exact same one again, it would not be the same, it would be a replacement.  Like what is described in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin, “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existences at the place where it happens to be.”  This explains why it is so hard to replace something that we value.  The value an object has is created most times from the memories that are associated with that physical object.

            This idea can also be seen in artwork or photography.  First let’s discuss historical works of art like the Mona Lisa.  There is only one true version of the Mona Lisa.  You would have to physically travel to Paris and then probably stand in a very long line for who knows how long, until you got your turn to actually see the original work of the Mona Lisa.  However, if you were to ask any random person on the street, chances are they would say they have seen some version of the Mona Lisa.  Our ability to copy and replicate just about anything has increased the amount of access given to certain things.  Most of the population would not be able to afford to make a trip to go see the Mona Lisa, but just about anyone could pull up Google and see hundreds of different copies of the Mona Lisa.  Is there really a difference between these two ways of seeing the work of art?  Of course there is!  The replicas all lack the “aura” that the original piece of work includes.  Only originals are said to have this “aura.”  So any copy that is made is lacking a big part of the artwork.  Although the one benefit to these replicas, like stated before, is the open access it gives to just about everyone.

            But then there is photography as an art itself, also relating to experiences.  Photographers make a living by making replicas of something they get to see first hand, or at least through their camera lens.  We all have a photograph hanging in our house somewhere that we did not take, but yet we find comfort in feeling like we were there to experience the moment even though we were not.  Photographs are essentially a copy of whatever it is the photographer is shooting.  Say it’s a wedding that they are at.  You could get photos from a wedding and they could make you feel like you were there.  Perhaps the photo is of some beautiful landscapes up in Alaska.  You may never have been to Alaska, but these photos make it seem like you were almost there.  Photography is one of the biggest ways in which we are able to make replicas of things, places, or events for others to also enjoy.  It again opens up access of so many things and places that most people don’t have readily available at their fingertips.  Some think this is a great advancement, but others feel like it is not the raw experience of actually seeing these things first hand for themselves.  All these photos lack the feelings, personalities, smells, and sounds that are noticed if you were to actually be experiencing these things yourself.  These things essentially create the “aura” just like physical objects might have.

            Everyone has a different view on the idea of replicas and copies of certain things.  And many people are split on the idea.  They might accept photography as an acceptable form of replication, but they might not like things that are mass produced because there are so many that are the “same” or considered to be the same.  While they are two different things, they can easily be compared and are more similar than some people are willing to accept.  Are people missing out if they don’t own the original or experience the “original” experience?  Sometimes they are, but sometimes a replica or copy is just fine.  This might seem a little dark, but think of tragic events in our history or personal lives.  Do you want to actually be in the actual war territory during war, or are you satisfied with photos that are sent back, which are essentially copies of the experience?  Most of us would probably agree that the photo is an acceptable form in this instance.  But on the other hand, what if it was your daughter’s first birthday, do you want to be there in person, or do you want a “copy,” (a picture), of your daughter blowing out the candle instead?  Here the original is much more desirable.