Universal Progression Towards Complexity

Module name: Contextual Studies 3

Module code: MMCS-III

Student name: Lucian Blankevoort

Student number: 201247240

UJ Faculty of Art Design & Architecture

Department Multimedia Design

Date submitted: 20 October 2014

Word count: 1851

i

ASSIGNMENT COVER PAGE / ANTI-PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

CONTEXTUAL STUDIES III

Assignment Title: Universal Progression Towards Complexity

Full name: Lucian Blankevoort

Student number: 201247240

Course: Multimedia Contextual Studies III

Lecturer: Shashi Cook

Due date: 20 October 2014

1. Plagiarism is to present someone else’s ideas as my own.

2. Where material written by other people has been used (either from a printed source or from the

internet), this has been carefully acknowledged and referenced. I have used the Geneva Convention for citation and referencing. Every contribution to and quotation from the work of other people in this essay has been acknowledged through citation and reference.

3. I know that plagiarism is wrong. 3.1 I understand what plagiarism is and am aware of the University’s policy in this regard. 3.2 I know that I would plagiarise if I do not give credit to my sources, or if I copy sentences or

paragraphs from a book, article or Internet source without proper citation.

3.3 I know that even if I only change the wording slightly, I still plagiarise when using someone else’s words without proper citation.

3.4 I declare that I have written my own sentences and paragraphs throughout my essay and I have credited all ideas I have gained from other people’s work.

4. I declare that this assignment is my own original work. 5. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it

off as his or her own work.

SIGNATURE____________________________________

DATE _________________________________________

i

Table of Contents

Table of Figures............................................................................................................................ ii

Universal Progression Towards Complexity................................................................................... 1

Sources Consulted........................................................................................................................ 6

ii

Table of Figures Figure 1 Henry Bill Publishers, The Arc of the Covenant (etching), 1881 ........................................... 2

Figure 2 Penelope Cruz, Before (left) and After (right) Photoshop, 2012........................................... 3

1

Universal Progression Towards Complexity

As the wise Terence McKenna (1998) observed, all things in this universe, as they travel through the

passage of time, strive to attain a new level of complexity. The cultural significance of artistic

representation is no exception to this universal law. In this essay I will explain the difference

between cult value and exhibition value, and the notion of the ‘aura’, as discussed by Walter

Benjamin (1955:791-811) in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. I will

lead this into discussions of the concept of simulacrum, with references to the works of Michael

Camille (1996:31-46), in his essay, Simulacrum, and Jean Baudrillard’s Selected Writings (1988:166-

184), using a visual example to illustrate the ideas discussed. I will go on to discuss the postmodern

notion of the ‘real’, referring to Kevin Hart (2004:47-66) in his essay Postmodern experience. Then I

will discuss how postmodern strategies have become irrelevant in context to Baudrillard’s theories

on simulacra.

It is thought that the primary function of the earliest forms of art, were based in ritual. Benjamin

(1955:796) refers to this as cult value; the value an art work has because of its perceived magical and

spiritual power, and its use in spiritual ritual. An object with cult value need not be readily visible to

the public; all that matters for it to hold its value, is that it exists and that people believe in its

spiritual powers. With the rise of mechanical reproduction, the authentic ‘aura’ of works of art

began to fade. With this, a general shift away from cult value, towards what Benjamin (1955:797)

calls exhibition value can be observed. An art work with exhibition value holds its value in its ability

to be exhibited to the public and consumed by viewers. Benjamin (1955:804) believes the shift from

works of cult value, to that of exhibition value, has extreme significance in how objects are

experienced by those who look upon it. Exhibition value, replaces the sense of pricelessness that

accompanies works with cult value, with a sense of economic and political value. For an object to

possess cult value, it is essential that it maintains its aura of authenticity (Benjamin 1955:796). The

work must remain ‘one of a kind’. Religious artefacts illustrate this point well, although cult value is

not limited to spiritual works, but any that holds value in the fact that it is genuine and authentic.

This cult value can be likened loosely to sentimental value. In Figure 1, we see an illustration of the

Arc of the Covenant. The Arc of the Covenant can be considered to be an object in possession of cult

value. The Arc of the Covenant is not available to the public eye (not even a photograph of it) and

remains under strict control of the church, accessible only to certain individuals. Even then,

accessibility is restricted. It holds its value in the fact that it is believed to be an original artefact

from biblical times, with magical powers that defy explanation. Even if we were to disregard any

2

magical properties of the Arc of the Covenant, it is still holds its value in its authenticity. This is what

Benjamin (1955:796) refers to as an objects ‘aura’. Its cult value is a direct result of the object being

authentic and original. Likewise, its aura of authenticity is a direct result of its cult value, and

perceived spiritual ties. Mechanical reproduction of the Arc would be pointless as any reproductions

would not possess the same cult value as the original, as they would not have the originals ‘aura’ of

authenticity nor would reproductions be associated with the same spiritual powers as the original.

Figure 1 Henry Bill Publishers, The Arc of the Covenant (etching), 1881 (Bond 1881)

Mechanically reproduced artworks have no cult value, but rather hold their value as objects to be

exhibited and consumed by viewers. This value replaces the sentimental value with one of political

and economic value (Benjamin 1955:798). With advertising, the link between mechanical

reproduction and exhibition value becomes most clear. For example, to have one’s advertisement

shown on prime time television, costs the most as your advert will reach the most viewers. Here, the

originality and aura of authenticity is not present, nor is it relevant, as the aim is to have the advert

consumed by the largest number of viewers in order to attract clients to your product. The same can

be said for political propaganda. Representations are displayed through mass media with the

intention that they will be consumed by the masses, in order to fulfil a political party’s agenda

3

(Benjamin 1955:796). This can be seen as doing away with the notion of distance between viewer

and original work, as the viewer is not instilled with a sense of distance from the representation, but

rather, the representation is made to become a part of the viewer, persuading them to purchase a

certain product, or think a certain way (Benjamin 1955:804). With the destruction of the notion of

distance, comes the destruction of the notion of the aura.

Camille (1996:32) defines the term simulacrum as a ‘false likeness’ and goes on to explain that a

simulacrum is a representation of the ‘real’ that masks the real ity of the instance it represents.

Rather than directly representing reality, a simulacrum is idealised or otherwise skewed or deviated

from reality to appeal to, or deceive, the viewer (Camille 1996:32). The simulacrum appears to

depict reality; however it doesn’t maintain the true properties of that which it imitates. Camille

(1996:33) illustrates the distinction between a simulacrum and a copy, in that a simulacrum imitates

an original visually however, it does not maintain the properties of the original. It therefore cannot

be referred to as the original, as it is clearly representative, nor can it be referred to as a copy.

Simulacrum attempt to deceive the viewer on more than just a visual level, manipulating the

viewer’s senses, based on past experience of the original, to create a sense of experience (Camille

1996:41). This creates a notion that the simulacrum is genuine, authentic and ‘real’,

indistinguishable from the original being represented. It could be said that a simulacrum attempts to

fake the aura of the original. The simulacrum becomes as ‘real’ to the viewer as that which they

imitate. Thus the line between real and fake is blurred beyond recognition (Camille 1996:33).

Figure 2 Penelope Cruz, Before (left) and After (right) Photoshop, 2012 (Xaniel 2012)

4

Figure 2 illustrates this point with a before Photoshop (left) and after Photoshop (right) touch-up

image. The image of the model, Penelope Cruz, is altered to create an idealised vision of her. This

creates a simulacrum of her. It is not true to life, as the image on the left is, but rather is a hyper-real

version of her. This hyper-real version of Penelope Cruz exists only in images. However, these are

the images of her that we, the public are exposed to; formulating part of the hyper-reality we live in,

with simulacrum replacing our notion of reality as Baudrillard speaks of (Camille 1996:39).

Camille defined the term ‘real’ to pertain to something that exists, in reality. Simulacra are not

included in this definition as they are symbols and icons that represent potential existence. Camille

(1996:31) refers to the concept of ‘phantasm’ and ‘phantasmagoria’, referring to that which exists in

the imagination, using this to oppose the idea of the ‘real’. This gives insight into his understanding

of the nature of simulacra as a system of signs and symbols relating to imaginary illusions of reality.

Baudrillard (cited by Camille 1996:38) states that, “It is no longer a question of imitation, nor even of

parody. It is rather a question of substituting signs of the real for the real itself… Illusion is no longer

possible because the real is no longer possible”. To Baudrillard, simulacrum is the resulting image

that was formed through the process of simulation by the mass media (Camille 1996:39). Baudrillard

argued that the mass media had neutralized reality in stages; at first imitating, then idealising and

finally replacing the ‘real’ with constructed symbolism that is indistinguishable from the ‘real’ to the

viewer (Camille 1996:39). As such it can be deduced that Baudrillard viewed all human experience in

present day society, to be a simulation of reality. Thus, he views all static viewpoints of human

existence to be simulacra, arguing that the ‘real’ has become extinct (Camille 1996:38). That is that

all imagery and static views presently observed is so far removed from anything representing the

real, that we are unable to recognise what is real, in the ‘true’ sense of the word. According to

Baudrillard, this can be attributed to the fact that the present reality is built upon the bastardised

foundations, or simulacra, of the past (Camille 1996:39).

Postmodernity as discussed by Hart (2004:55), ideates the notion of reality as a collection of our

personal past experiences. Hart (2004:58) discusses the notion of a hyper-reality, as a living world of

images and representations of the world that are more ‘real’ and alluring than the actual world

around us. This illustrates Baudrilliards observation that our notion of the real has been replaced by

simulacrum (Camille 1996:39). Postmodernism values the idea of many viewpoints all making up a

definable truth. Postmodernism accepts that there is no single ‘truth’ and that all versions of the

truth coexist. The ‘real’ in terms of meaning, is accepted as being specific to the individual. It is a

constructed perspective, based on social conventions and views, and individually interpreted, based

on an individual’s past experiences and beliefs. This postmodern viewpoint takes all perspectives of

5

the ‘truth’ to be valid; the many threads that make up the cloth of reality. However, in the context of

the simulacrum, it can be argued that each of these perspectives is constructed from a false sense of

reality, and cannot be assumed to hold any value as authentic views towards the truth. Baudrillard

suggests that all that anybody in present day society ‘knows’, is simply an insight into a hyper-reality,

built on false representations of reality (Camille 1996:39). At most, these different views are the

metaphorical ‘threads’ that make up the cloth that is the hyper-reality we live in.

The meaning and reason behind the representative imagery mankind creates has gone through

some drastic changes since it was first created. As with all things in our universe, the cultural

significance of art started off simple and escalates exponentially into new states of complexity

(McKenna 1998). From the spiritual cult value of the first art, with emphasis on originality and ideas

of authentic artworks; to the mechanically reproducible, exhibition value, works of the modernist

era, and the replacement of the ‘aura’ with mass perception; to the simulations of simulations that

created the simulacra foundations of our present day hyper-reality. The progression is clear, as are

the reasons for such progression. Clear too is the fact that we cannot reverse the processes, and we

are destined to live in a world that is not what it seems. At least this is how it shall be in this

capitalist, consumer driven economic period.

6

Sources Consulted

Benjamin, W. 1955. The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Braudy, L. & Cohen, M. (eds.) 2004. Film theory and criticism. Introductory readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bond, A. 1881. Young People's Illustrated Bible History. Norwich: The Henry Bill Publishing Company. Camille, M. Simulacrum. In Nelson, R. & Shiff, R. (eds.) 1996. Critical Terms for Art History. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press: 31-46. Hart, K. 2004. Chapter 3. Postmodern experience, in Postmodernism, a beginner’s guide. Oxford:

Oxford University Press: 47-66. McKenna, T. 1998. Final Earthbound Interview. [O]. Available:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCaK35DQ4uk Accessed 20 October 2014.

Xaniel, D. 2012. Celebrities Before and After Photoshop Touchups. [O]. Available:

http://izismile.com/2012/04/27/celebrities_before_and_after_photoshop_touch_ups_25_pics.html Accessed 20 October 2014.