Authenticity and Aura of a Digital Replica – blog post on Theorizing a 3D Object
A cup. A coin. A belt. Simple vessels, items of clothing or tools intended to make people’s lives easier and their labour – more bearable. Among those who lived in times gone by, who would have ever thought that someday the plain and rather boring objects of their everyday life would be of such interest to archeologists, scientists, museum curators and the common person?
That being said, nowadays there are probably few people who stop in the midst of their busy existence to spare a thought: “What if someday, hundreds or even thousands of years from now one of my belongings turns out in a museum? My smartphone, my earphones, or even my shoe!” And indeed, the objects of today are the heritage of tomorrow. Therefore, we should do everything in our power to preserve them as much as possible.
With the help of modern technology 3D object reproduction has become easier and more accurate than ever. One such contemporary method is called Photogrammetry. It is used with the purpose of creating realistic 3D models by extracting data and measurements from photographs. The following you tube link it will show how to started with Photogrammetry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIW4XU6Wm8Q&t=797s
The object that this article will strive to describe and theorize is one such 3D replica of a designer brand trainer shoe. When it comes to theory, this object poses a number of problems predominantly in terms of aura and authenticity. What’s more, whereas a designer trainer has the clear purpose of facilitating walking, its digital replica lacks functionality whatsoever, thus we can only view and discuss it as an image – a vibrant shadow of the material phenomenon, unattainable with all of our senses but rather simply engaging us visually. A synesthetic approach to 3D models would pose a great challenge for application and interface developers, and yet if achieved, it would become a valuable contribution to the overall perception of the replica by the audience, its weaving within the fabric of cultural and historic background of the original.
created by Desi Pavlova
This brings us to the crucial question of authenticity and aura. According to some influential authors including L. Smith, authenticity is a cultural construct. The objects’ value is inherent not within their material dimensions but within the network of relationships that shape them. In her book ‘Use of Heritage’ the Australian scholar argues that the essence of authenticity resides in the forging of meaning that people do in their day-to-day lives (Smith, L. (2006). Another famous team of contemporary authors, Latour and Lowe, believe that the quality of the replica is of supreme importance to its uniqueness. The idea of this very uniqueness was elaborately discussed by the 20th century German philosopher Walter Benjamin. He coined the term ‘aura’ which has proven to be quite a challenge since it is definitely not most straightforward concept to grasp. In his highly influential 1936 essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ he argues that mechanical reproduction changed both the development and distribution, as well as the very definition of art itself. The text starts by exploring what has been devalued as a result of reproduction – an artistic object’s authenticity. He writes that 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. The ability for artworks to be replicated produces new possibilities but also represses something – its aura. This ‘shattering of tradition’, this ‘renewal of mankind’ is ’intimately connected with the contemporary mass movements’, he wrote (Benjamin, W. (1936). Art was born within the context of cult, ritual and sacred mysteries. Modernity however fulfils the desire of the masses to get closer to the works of art, to make them exhibition-worthy and to overcome each object’s aura. But what exactly is aura? Benjamin (1936) argues that it arises out of an object or phenomenon’s uniqueness and consequently of being close to that uniqueness. The aura of a beautiful sunset or a mountain range for instance – this uniqueness of a work of art also arises from its place in a tradition.
However, according to Latour and Lowe (2011, quoted by Jeffrey, S. (2015), p. 147) ‘some parts of the aura of an original object can indeed migrate to its replicas.’ This depends on factors such as expertise, intentionality, etc. That is to say, the authors claim that the aura transcends to the final replica. Jeffrey argues that what has been said by Latour and Lowe about physical reproductions can be applied to the digital ones as well.
So, is our 3D trainer an eligible candidate for analysis through the lens of Benjamin, Latour & Lowe, and L. Smith? Is it a good or a bad replica, does it possess an aura and authenticity, is this at all an artistic endeavor, or merely an everyday object turned digital?
Authenticity as a cultural construct is not some far-fetched scholarly idea, but a phenomenon deeply intertwined with modern reality as well. Being able to wear branded designer goods has always been viewed as a demonstration of wealth and a higher social status. They are an expensive commodity and not everyone gets the chance to own them. This instantly puts even more value on the object and enables us to argue in favour of it possessing authenticity. This view will be further justified if we establish that the 3D model itself is well-made, being successful in the detailed representation of objective, palpable reality.
In the words of Benjamin: ‘reproduction can bring out those aspects of the original that are unattainable to the naked eye yet accessible to the lens.’ Furthermore, he claims that ‘reproduction […] can capture images which escape natural vision’ (Benjamin, W. (1936). It is true that the method of Photogrammetry provides us with a strikingly realistic reproduction of the original – we can see all the tiny details of the shoe that would otherwise evade our human gaze: the tiny, almost invisible spots of dirt, the little folds and creases, just like wrinkles on a human face, that make us think of physical activity; a more vivid imagination would even make us smell the rubber and the fabric or feel the morning breeze while looking at the trainer. From the overall design to the faintest colour on the sole – it is all visible. The spectator can zoom in and out and rotate the image however they like to get a better view of it. In this sense the replica is arguably even better than the original. Therefore, the obvious technological sophistication of the 3D trainer brings us further and further to the conclusion that the current replica does indeed possess at least some degree of authenticity.
As far as Benjamin’s take on the concept of aura is concerned, it is arguable if it is applicable in the case of the 3D trainer. Could his notion be cognitively extended to encompass our perception of a mere shoe as a piece of art possessing uniqueness? He claims that ‘by making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.’ (Benjamin, W. (1936) The debate could stem from the idea of ‘tradition’ with reference to designer brands. Can tradition be shattered if it is yet to be established? If it is subordinate to modernity to the extent of almost negating itself? This question is open to individual interpretation. However, the very concept of uniqueness might also be questionable when it comes to objects of such nature – intended for mass production, objects that cater to our basic needs. Whereas art is deliberately provocative and emotional, design is supposed to serve a certain function. And yet, designer products do share some common features with art – the primary focus of Benjamin’s essay. Some even consider design to be an art form in its own right. The overlap between art and design lies mainly in the fact that they both compete for the attention of the audience, as well as the creative journey that the artist and designer embark on. They can both put their heart and soul into their work by means of artistic skills and choices. A designer work can turn out to be very close to an exquisite piece of art for those who are loyal to the brand. In conclusion, the designer object has its own uniqueness, its own aura, and deserves artistic appreciation. And, if we adopt Latour and Lowes’s stance on the matter, the 3D replica has the ability to retain the authentic qualities of the original – the aura migrates to the copy and serves as a medium to better perceive and understand the original. Instead of diminishing the aura of the original, the 3D replication helps to further enhance the authenticity and uniqueness of the object being reproduced.
And truly, why should a copy be any less than the original? For Plato and the ancient minds art itself was a mimesis – imitation, illusion, a distant shadow sketching the divine world of ideas. And yet, we put so much value on artistic creation. Even if artists are twice removed from truth, their work inspires and changes lives. In the same manner a replica’s aura, its unique presence can be all-pervasive even when it depicts a seemingly ordinary everyday object.
References:
- Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Schocken/Random House, ed. by Hannah Arendt. Retrieved January 23, 2022
- Jeffrey, S. (2015). Challenging heritage visualisation: beauty, aura and democratisation. Open Archaeology 2015; 1: 144–152
- Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage [Electronic version]. Retrieved January 23, 2022,
- Latour, B. & Lowe, A. (2011). The Migration of the Aura, or How to Explore the Original through its Facsimiles. In Bartscherer, T. & Coover, R. (eds) Switching Codes: Thinking Through Digital Technology In The Humanities And The Arts, pp. 275–98. University of Chicago Press.
20
0
