Theories of Originality

The Concepts of the original and the copy. Was originality simply a modernist illusion?

Jean Baudrillard, "The Hyper-realism of Simulation"
Rosalind Krauss, "The Originality of the Avant Garde"

In "The Originality of the Avant Garde" Rosalind Krauss begins by discussing Rodin and the controversey that arose through works of art he created recast after his death. Many people would view this "violation" of the artist as a meaningless repetitious "fake," but as Krauss points out in further discussion within the essay; Rodin himself would not have considered a finished sculpture an "original" had he done it himself, alive and well. For Rodin, who as Krauss pointed out may not have done all his sculptures himself in the first place, it was the actual cast which was the original and the "finished product" which came out of it, merely a repetition of the original itself, a representation of design, imagination, and idea which Rodin formed into physicality through his cast. His sculptures were meant to be repetitious of the original, that was their very purpose, all of his artwork were "multiple copies that exist in the absence of an original" because the original was not available; to display merely a casting in an exhibit would have meant showcasing something incomplete, it is the cast and action of creating a multiple as well as the copy in full form which completes his idea. Rodin was essentially working in a medium that was meant for reproduction.

But, what form of art is not a reproduction and/or representation of if not reality, then at least an idea. As Krauss goes on to explain even Abstract and Avant Garde artwork there may not be a clear resemblance of reality within the work, but a representation of an idea, such as that of the grid. Not only is the grid an unoriginal idea but it is also repetitious by nature; which for the Avant Garde artist that realization would have been a hard pill to swallow. By trying their hardest to avoid resembling reality like the photography, painting, etc. of the past the Avant Garde artists had recreated one of the most basic concepts ingrained in human nature (continuously repeating it in their artwork) that was defined by its repetitious nature; seems kind of ironic that in an effort to get away from it, they only simplified the idea of repetition and resemblance. And because of this notion then originality is unattainable because if a work of art is not made for repetition and multiplicity then it is made for resemblance. Through a repetitious medium an original is unobtainable and when artwork is made in the realm of resembling ideas and/or reality then originality cannot be grasped. So can the unoriginal have an original and can an original be original?

The grid utilized in Greek architecture...

...and simplified in Mondrian.

In "The Hyper-realism of Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard he fully breaks down the notion of reality and explains its destruction through imagery and art. It seems that the idea to advertise and project is somehow ingrained in us naturally; before the mass printing press or photography existed the entire human race was always set on advertising or representing our reality to ourselves, almost as if it would make reality more "real" and concrete. I think this need for representation is almost like the idea of religion: a coping mechanism created by us as a way to deal with our existance and our place within what exists, "reality." With the invention of the mass printing press and then photography this urge heightened and the means to represent our reality was refined. We no longer merely resemble reality and our place within it, but we have gained the power to recreate it; thus reality becomes hyper-reality. Through hyper-realism what is decidedly imaginary becomes blurred as does the idea of the "real." Through repetitious media, such as photography, we no longer needed to see or touch an object to know of its reality or existence, that was dictated to us by its image within advertisements and books. Now with the birth of photoshop and other aspects of the digital environment we can create new realities for ourselves; "reality is stranger than fiction." I question what exactly this means for not only myself as an artist, but as a human being. Have we reached our ultimate level of resemblance and advertisement or is there still yet another avenue that would not only destroy reality and blur the lines between fact and fiction, but perhaps make the imagined a reality?

(Our new reality. Fictitious and imaginary standard of beauty that is unattainable, brought to us by a medium that is thought to only depict what is real and manipulated into a fantasy by the digital environment. For some who viewed this advertisement this ideal became their reality and was not longer rooted in the imaginary)