In this work I approach the concept of shadow and the reproducibility of an image, through a study of the work of Walter Benjamin, “The work of art in the Age of its technical reproducibility” and also of Hito Steyer “In defence of the poor image”.
Here I discuss the problems regarding the copy of a work and its degradation and maltreatment, inherent to the copies of the modern world. The photograph here loses its original representation, becoming a basic component of the work. The digital medium has come to question the truth of matters, since digital images are easily changed and despite that we still easily believe in the “truth” of photography, even if it is an image with poor quality that is often validated as an original picture. The shadow, being something that is not always notorious but that always accompanies a referent, is directly linked to the characteristics of a reproduction and its consequences, not being easily denoted but always present.
Here the original image also presents a dichotomy between the classic and the modern. The pose in three quarters, with the blurred image (in the classical era it was difficult to produce an image completely in focus) goes in the opposite direction of modern photography, in which the focus is highly valued. The blur visible on the face also creates an initial discomfort that goes on point to the idea of the project. With the completion of the twenty copies, the difference between the original and the copy does not become so evident. Only chromatic changes and general degradation are visible along the photocopies, which raises the question to the viewer whether the first image was really an original or a copy.
It is important to note that each copy is referring to the previous image, not the original. That is, the third copy is referring to the second, which is related to the first, which is a photocopy of the original image.
Here I discuss the problems regarding the copy of a work and its degradation and maltreatment, inherent to the copies of the modern world. The photograph here loses its original representation, becoming a basic component of the work. The digital medium has come to question the truth of matters, since digital images are easily changed and despite that we still easily believe in the “truth” of photography, even if it is an image with poor quality that is often validated as an original picture. The shadow, being something that is not always notorious but that always accompanies a referent, is directly linked to the characteristics of a reproduction and its consequences, not being easily denoted but always present.
Here the original image also presents a dichotomy between the classic and the modern. The pose in three quarters, with the blurred image (in the classical era it was difficult to produce an image completely in focus) goes in the opposite direction of modern photography, in which the focus is highly valued. The blur visible on the face also creates an initial discomfort that goes on point to the idea of the project. With the completion of the twenty copies, the difference between the original and the copy does not become so evident. Only chromatic changes and general degradation are visible along the photocopies, which raises the question to the viewer whether the first image was really an original or a copy.
It is important to note that each copy is referring to the previous image, not the original. That is, the third copy is referring to the second, which is related to the first, which is a photocopy of the original image.
