Scrawled in Wax

Two essays – one from 2008, one from 1936 – reveal markedly different reactions to technology’s capacity for making copies.

This week, former executive editor of Wired Kevin Kelly has written an interesting, lengthy piece entitled “Better than Free“. The essay is a response to the idea that the internet is at heart a “giant copy machine” which has the ability to almost instantly copy and distribute items. Kelly argues this is a major economic and cultural shift as, rather than focusing on scarcity – that one should buy a limited edition CD or DVD – the online economy has made the infinite number of copies floating around virtually worthless. Value, if it is to be found, must be located elsewhere when copies are almost limitless.

What struck me instantly about Kelly’s essay was that the issues it engages are uncannily similar to those in an essay written in 1936 by cultural critic Walter Benjamin. In the seminal text “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction“, Benjamin engages how the meaning and function of art may change in light of then-new technology such as improved lithography techniques and film. Of particular interest to Benjamin is how one conceives of ‘the original’ when the ability to make perfect copies has undercut its mythic status – what Benjamin calls its “aura”.

But while both authors are engaging the same question, they come to markedly different conclusions. Kelly argues that the economic value of intangibles must be emphasised. Authenticity, Trust and Personalisation are some of the eight “generatives” that he argues are to be the root of prosperity in the new economy. So, for example, rather than simply buying an album, one pays extra for a mix that is designed for one’s living room or comes with a marker of authenticity like a signature or stamped insignia. What is key to Kelly is how certain ineffable cultural qualities can be made economically valuable to consumers.

Benjamin, on the other hand, focuses on how copies destabilize the very idea of the original and, in doing so, place emphasis on their political and social import rather than their economic value. Instead of having to go le Louvre to see the original Mona Lisa, when people in Singapore and Vancouver can watch the same film, everyone gets to base their reactions on the same object. The lack of an authentic original chips away at the hierarchies based on who gets access to culture and the rituals associated with it – i.e. the reverence we give to the ‘real thing’. The “aura” – a weird sort of ‘magical value’ attached to the original object – is no longer there. Freed from the rituals associated with this aura, Benjamin argues, one is free to politicise art and culture, to position it as a manifestation of society rather than a work of genius or a unique gift only available to a few. The benefit is clear: if everyone gets to engage with culture, then the democratic and transformative potential of art is greatly expanded.

Admittedly, the two essays are remarkably different in approach – Kelly is thinking of how to create value while Benjamin is trying to understand what happens when a particular sort of value disappears. Still, as much as I am trying to remain neutral, there is something significant in Kelly’s choice to think through this in terms of economic value. Yes, the historical context is quite different and Benjamin’s odd mix of mysticism and Marxism is still a bit startling even today. But it does say a lot about the twenty-first century. Even on a site like Kelly’s, which he claims is dedicated to understanding the relationship of technology to culture, the only real choice is to talk about how to monetize the things we either think are valuable (e.g. personalization) or fetishise (e.g. authenticity). While I am, as always, stuck for alternatives it is, at the very least, food for thought.