I like Savage Chickens. I'll admit it. The sticky note aphorisms make my day. This particular one regarding originality reminds me of the statement from Benjamin's work: "The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity." There are several thoughts I have regarding this issue and they don't necessarily flow with each other so I'll address them as points:
a) For most avid readers, there's always a certain sense of dissatisfaction when watching movies adapted from books. Why? Are adaptations that bad? Would adhering strictly to the plot be any better? Can the screen ever equal the imagination? This reminds me of Baudrillard: are we expecting the simulacrum of something tangible to equal an an intagible original?
b) Original Broadway productions: is there something about seeing Broadway in New York City that makes it different from seeing it in Providence? Or Wichita, Kansas? Or Paris, France? I still retain a sentimental attachment towards Phantom of the Opera performed by Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman--if there is "aura" [as Benjamin might call it], than is an original "more original"?
c) From a semantics perspective, I'm interested in these words: reproduction, (re)interpretation, adaptation, recreation, duplication, copy. Do these indicate different degrees of ownership/originality? Is it okay to adapt but not duplicate? How much do we consider the intent of said adapter/reproducer/copier/etc., i.e. what if the reason for doing this is to subvert or twist the original message? Is the reproduction then validated?
As I mentioned in the t-shirt post, I'm very fascinated with the idea of identity. What Benjamin describes as aura could easily translate into the term identity for me. Does reproduction enhance, deface, or leave unchanged the identity of the original? And do we value the identity of the reproduction based on what it does relative to the original? Apparently, points both chickens and humans need to consider.
No comments:
Post a Comment