A Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction

In Walter Benjamin's seminal essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," he examines the ever-changing role of art within the epicenter of a culture predicated on technology and mass-consumption.  Only recently have we the ability to disseminate texts through myriad channels with infinite copies.  Benjamin's work has since become pivotal in Marxist theory to eloquently point out the inherent class system associated with privileging artwork to the few.  But still, the two edged sword of mass consumption thereby eliminates the singularity, the "aura", its special-ness.  As he writes:

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. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence.

But as we ourselves hurdle through space and time we must look to new ways of reading this.  I used to argue with Benjamin's notion of "the aura."  What was the point of the singular object fixated within time and space if so few could experience it?  Can the Mona Lisa not be seen as beautiful on a postcard rather than under bullet proof glass halfway around the world in the Louvre? How does that intangible quality measure up to the art I'm more familiar with: films, music albums, novels...work created within a medium that by definition requires copies.

Then again...is the aura what we feel when we come across that rare first edition of The Great Gatsby under a pile of junk in an antique shop?  What about a limited print run of "Meet the Beatles" with the blank back?  Or, a never before seen copy of Lang's Metropolis with scenes believed to be lost to history forever?  Is this where the aura hides in artwork that was destined for reproducibility?  In the rarities, mistakes, misprints, and gaffs that survive?  Is history required in order to radiate aura?  These are questions I still wrestle with.

But not only is understanding the effects "A Work of Art..." a labyrinthine exercise in masochism, it's also never locked into permanence.  Because much like Benjamin's argument for the aura as existing in a singular object's time/space so too are the words he wrote.

What would Benjamin have to say when the majority of music today is encoded digitally in loss-less files and distributed online?  Radiohead's "In Rainbows" came into fruition as a solely ephemeral work (that has since been distributed in tangible CD/Vinyl formats) purchased, downloaded, and absorbed without anything but an Ipod touching your hands.  The loss of video-rental stores giving way to Netflix Instant-Streaming and cable-services On Demand functionality.  E-Readers.  I personally am not looking forward to the shift to fully digital age.  I prize my DVD collection.  I take for granted the ink residue on my fingertips after flipping through the morning paper.

Are we ready to analyze what this step away from the tangible symbolizes?  What it means on a cultural level?  I'm typing these words directly into cyberspace.  They will never be printed (unless you CTRL+P) but will buzz around in the ephemeral sea of 1's and 0s.  Where's the aura in that?

Official "The Kiss" Poster finally revealed!

Derek Dubois - On Whimsy

Currently, I am in the middle of shooting a new short film entitled "The Kiss."  In it, a young film studies student develops a crush on her professor, casting him in her student-film as the love interest in an attempt to generate sparks in real life.  I guess you can say that this is the whimsical, fictional version of my "Hot for Teacher" documentary.  And though there is surely much to be mined from the idea of my subconscious running with these ideas...I am currently much more entangled with the adjective I've been using to describe the film: whimsical.

From the very beginning I knew I wanted to make my own version of "Amelie."  Not a narrative ripoff, per se, but a short film that captures the tone of Jeunet's modern classic.  There aren't many films that exist which generate these feelings of whimsy.  Others integral to this project: "Punchdrunk Love" and "The Science of Sleep."

But what is whimsy?  This is what I continue to loop around to.  Unfortunately, after months of contemplation, I still have nothing more to offer than the supreme court judge's obscenity ruling: "I know it when I see it!"  I just cannot box whimsy into words.  Surely whimsy finds its lineage in comedy but is it truly a genre unto itself?  What are the shared characteristics between the aforementioned films and Chaplin roller skating on the precipice of almost certain death in "Modern Times?" Or the house falling down around Buster Keaton in "One Week?"

In Roger Ebert's review of Wes Anderson's "The Life Aquatic" he states that the film "suffers from terminal whimsy."  I must disagree with Ebert.  I adore "The Life Aquatic" and while the film certainly oozes with whimsy (as the rest of Anderson's oeuvre does) I don't believe this is a detriment to it but rather its saving grace.

I am now 1/3 of the way through shooting "The Kiss" and the script is constantly being revised as we shoot in order to slim it down and pick up the pace.  The only notions I have to go on are "What Would Amelie Do?" I guess the ultimate trait for whimsy is to have a narrative in which the stakes of the protagonist's journey aren't too severe.  But in order to compensate for this the characters themselves must be god damn electric.

I sincerely hope "The Kiss" reaches these aspirations.  I hope the narrative arc serves as an entertaining journey.  I hope that the character of Olivia Adams melts your heart while splintering your funny bone.  I hope that the exercises in style we've methodically considered aren't empty but kinetic and substantial.

In the meantime, if I ever lock down a definition for whimsy I'll be sure to post it here.

The Paradox of "Making It"

It doesn't take a Media Studies degree to realize that we're living in a culture of hyperstimulation.  This word, borrowed liberally from historian Ben Singer who used it to describe the barrage of stimuli that arose with technological expansion at the dawn of the twentieth century, applies even more so to the current new media landscape.  However, the promise of technology is simultaneously both a blessing and a curse for artists trying to emerge into the Art World.  To plant their flags in earnestness.  To "make it."

The notion of "making it" was seeded fairly early in my brain.  It all began with music; when I received a guitar at the age of 12 and my teenage years were spent desperately trying to be Noel Gallagher from Oasis (minus the massive blow habit).  I had the Epiphone guitar, the Adidas Samba sneakers, and when I sang (others will tell you) there was the hint of a Manchester accent in there.  I craved the role of the intelligent songwriter: the backbone of creativity rather than the rock and roll swagger of brother Liam.  That immersion into Brit-Pop finally led me to Radiohead.  Through Radiohead I observed that an artist could have it all: killer songwriting abilities / artistic credibility / on stage chemistry / a book club...while critics all but permanently stitched their lips to your asshole.

Music eventually gave way in my college years to film and filmmaking and this paradigm actually has a word that describes what I had been questing after my entire teenage life: auteur.  Hitchcock, Scorsese, Kurosawa, Kubrick, P.T. Anderson: their films are synonymous with their names; inseparable even.  Films, though entirely collaborative, are essentially little golden eggs laid by these artists - or so that is the impression we take away from them.

I've been making small digital films for a few years now.  They started off god-awful but I firmly believe that each and every effort is an improvement over the last.  This is on all levels: screenwriting, cinematography, editing, visual effects, acting, etc.  Note that the end-credit sequences of each film have gotten longer and longer.  It was beaten into me in an Introductory Psychology class that "correlation does not imply causation" but here it absolutely does.  These films are not only improving because I'm maturing within the art form but because I'm surrounding myself with like-minded individuals and together the final product is infinitely stronger than had I gone it alone.  Through my attempts at becoming an auteur, I have learned how impossible the idea ever was.

Screenwriting is ultimately how I hope to break into the business.  Unfortunately there is a catch-22 with "making it."  That is, it takes an agent to sell your screenplay but you cannot get an agent without having sold a screenplay.  There are always exceptions of course but hundreds and hundreds of query letters will eventually yield hundreds and hundreds of rejections: "PASS," "NOT TAKING NEW CLIENTS AT THIS TIME", "YOUR WORK DOESN'T MEET OUR CURRENT NEEDS."  It's enough to drive even the most determined insane.

And so in between screenwriting attempts I'll continue to make short films with the hopes that the film will hit just the right person at the right place at the right time.  But even this is impossible.  Why?  Because, as I wrote at the beginning - this is a culture of hyperstimulation.  Everyone has access to digital cameras and editing software.  Everyone can self-publish their book of short stories.  Everyone can learn how to write screenplays online.  The same opportunities that have allowed me the tools to make films also allows access to anyone else in the world.  How many other filmmakers posted films to Youtube today?  Frankly there is an ephemeral sea of media out there and I am but a drop of water.  Bite sized files of ones and zeros clog the pathways.  It is virtually impossible to rise above the muck. 

But this does not depress me.  How can it?  Through working with others I've found a collaborative of wonderful people who quest for and share the same desires that I have.  It doesn't matter if my films reach the west-coast, net deals, inspire millions: as long as they continue to make me happy there is a purpose to it all.  And on that saccharine note I'll beg of you:

Watch my movies!    ;)