Replicating the paprika _ Field notes
I chose to make a replica of a paprika.
I chose to make a replica of a paprika.. because...
Paprikas are alive, and due to that, they transform fast in time.
They are special as every each of them has quite a unique shape.
They have an attractive appearance and color, and if you open them, they are hollow.
I like to eat them. I like their color. I like the fact that they are hollow.
I chose to make the paprika’s replica with clay ‘cause I can mold it in many ways.
I touch the paprika, I touch the clay, and I form its curvy shape.
_
Replication is inevitably related to comparison. It is a continuous act of selective comparison.
I made a quite accurate replica of a paprika.
The weight is not the same; the replica is heavier.
If you drop it, instead of bouncing off or rolling away, it will break.
You can’t squeeze it like the real paprika; it is stiff and hard.
The replica’s sound is unexpected. It is, of course, the sound of its true material. The sound of the baked clay. It is the sound your cup of coffee makes when by accident, it hits your plate.
The mass of the replica and how it is distributed is uncontrollable and hence different in each case.
You will notice it if you hang the replicas.
They will move differently.
You will notice it if you try to balance them at a weird angle.
They will roll over differently.
The replica doesn’t smell like the paprika, and it’s cold.
But it looks exactly like the paprika! The color is the same!
It is an accurate replica.
Replicating needs patience and persistence.
The accuracy of the replica depends on the dedication of the maker.
Every step of the process affects how the replica will be in the end.
Even when you use a mold, it is impossible to create two identical replicas.
Even if the process is precisely the same every time, many factors don’t allow it to be done in the same way.
The mold is the same, but the clay doesn’t have the same density every time. Sometimes you need to add more water, and you can easily add more than it needs. Then it is more liquid; it needs more time to dry.
Sometimes you will forget it in the dry closet, and it will sprinkle more than
it should or than it did the previous time.
Sometimes you will be lazy, and you won’t put enough glaze, and there will be white spots.
One of the differences the replica has from the original is the influence of the maker. If we assume that the original is something objective and autonomous, its replica will be by definition something subjective as it is created according to the point of view of the maker and the way he perceived the original. The replica is not the representation of the original; it is the representation of how the maker perceived the original.
A replica is a contradiction itself.
It copies exactly some of the aspects of the original and omits the others.
Producing a perfect replica of something alive, of something that is constantly changing over time, is challenging.
Eventually, everything changes through time, but the pace of the transformation affects the success of the replication.
The pace of the transformation affects the relation of the replica with the original.
The replica will be very similar to the paprika on the first day, but the differences will slowly reveal as time passes.
The original paprika gets old...
It wrinkles, and it shrinks.
It changes every day, and every day it changes.
The replica always remains the same.
The making process of a replica with clay takes time.
When the replica was completed, the original paprika didn’t exist anymore.. not in the same condition.
Then the replica becomes a memory of the original in a fragment of time.
When the original doesn’t exist anymore, the replica becomes more valuable.
As the original paprika doesn’t exist anymore, every failure of the replica will pass as it was part of the original.
The details that the replica failed to copy and the details that never existed on the original but by accident were added to the replica.
Although we are aware that the replica didn’t copy all the original’s properties, we are not so aware that even the form of the replica wasn’t what the replica copied; not only because it isn’t accurate enough but also because the form of the paprika was never something fixed.
The paprika is transforming continuously, but by replicating it in a specific moment of this process, we highlight its form at that moment as the main one.
Whatever the paprika was before this stage or would be after has fallen into decay. Still, that specific moment is saved forever, and it becomes representative of the paprika as an entity.
When you replicate something, even a replica, it becomes the ‘original’ for the new replica.
By replicating a replica, you transform it into an original.
What is a replica?
In a way, the word replica can be very broad and associated with many different things. If we think of it as a representation or as a copy, we will soon realize that many kinds of replicas surround us. Nowadays, almost everything is duplicated, but a replica is neither just a double nor a simple representation. Actually, the more I look for its synonyms, the more I question what distinguishes the replica from a copy, a representation, a reproduction, a version, or a documentation. As the ‘replica’ is a core element of my artistic system, there is a strong urgency for me to define it.
My first attempt to find the definition of the word didn’t leave me satisfied enough. Most definitions relate the word ‘replica’ with particular objects and exclude various others that I would identify as such. According to Wikipedia 3:
A replica is an exact copy, such as of a painting, as it was executed by the original artist or a copy or a reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original.
A replica is a copy closely resembling the original concerning its shape and appearance.
In my practice, ‘replicas’ are not related to paintings, nor they are always smaller than the original; I could define them as ‘copies that are closely resembling the original concerning its shape and appearance,’ but still, this definition is missing a lot to correspond to the notion of the replica as I mean it. Therefore, to conclude with a meaning that would make clear how I approach this term, I decided to dive further into the process of replication.
The process of replication
Normally, in my practice, I replicate the ‘existing environment.’ Until now, I have done this with various means; hence I used as replicas, mirrors, scaled models, and sound or video recordings which I projected or displayed through screens and other devices. Nevertheless, to examine the notion of the replica through its making process, I decided to copy a paprika and make its replica with clay.
I chose the paprika because of its shape, which is noticeably unique among others of the same kind, because of the size, which is handy to hold and mold, and because it is an alive entity and reflects the passage of time. As for the technique, I chose to make it from clay because it is a manual process that requires some skills from the maker and involves his body and his senses. Obviously, the paprika can’t be compared to the ‘existing environment,’ but the process of making a replica can teach the same lessons and exude analogous ideas. While making the replicas from the paprika, I took field notes that shaped my interpretation of what is actually a replica and how it is related to my work and the original from which it is produced. Another replicating process of another object could be equally fruitful or could lead to different observations; however, the paprika, with its limitations and challenges, triggered many realizations.
By replicating the paprika, I realized that a replica is a ‘paradoxical copy.’ It opposes itself, as it aims to accurately copy certain aspects of an entity while at the same time completely ignoring others. Furthermore, the replica is usually used to copy only the features associated with the appearance. The reason for this is that appearance outweighs other characteristics, just as sight outweighs other senses. Appearance is also what defines us first. The paprika’s replica is made to look exactly like the real but not to sound like it, weigh the same, or taste the same. In fact, it is doubtful whether we would describe something that mimics other features of the original other than its appearance as its exact copy.
On the other hand, even when a copy has the characteristics explained above; therefore, it only copies some of the aspects of the original; it is still not certain whether we should call it a replica—for example, the children’s toys. Fake machines, fake food, or fake money; they look real only in appearance. Are they replica’s or should we better define them as representations? The same question arises again. What distinguishes the replica from its synonyms?
It looks like a copy is not defined as a replica solely according to its form and properties but also according to its purpose of use. An entity is not defined as a replica or as copy or as reproduction, only because it resembles something that existed before; this property is common to all the above. Τheir noticeable differences lie in how they will be used and their relation to the ‘original.’ As the paprika wouldn’t make the best example here due to its biological nature, let’s think of a wooden table.
Imagine this old wooden table, handcrafted by a young artisan in Utrecht. When the artisan completed the table, he was very proud of it; it was his masterpiece. Everything was perfectly executed from the design to the last detail, exactly as he had imagined it. He was sure that he would immediately sell the table, so he decided to make another one straight away. He repeated the same steps and used the same tools, but his excitement was so big that he rushed to finish it, and the edges weren’t the same smooth as the previous one. Also, the piece of wood he used was slightly lighter. In the end, though, he had a good copy of his masterpiece. He wasn’t sure about selling or not the first table, but he wanted to save every detail about its making process and the design so that he wouldn’t forget and he could review it in the future and make more copies. He sat down and made a detailed design. He kept notes and even took a photo of it for documentation. The artisan eventually sold many copies of that table, but he kept the first one for his own. It became the family’s dining table where they celebrated birthdays and Christmas dinners. It was an integral part of family gatherings for years, but at some point, the artisan’s business went bankrupt, and he had to sell it along with his house. As for the table designs, they were once found in a second-hand shop by a furniture designer. He bought them for a meager price and studied them carefully. He had this great idea to reproduce the table, and thus he followed all the instructions that he found in the artisan’s notes. Before starting the reproduction of the table, he made a representation of it, a scaled model which he showed to his boss. His boss was excited about the idea and immediately started the (re)production. The vintage design of the table was popular only with a few customers, while most preferred more minimal lines and less decoration. Then the furniture company decided to make another version of the table without decorative elements that would better suit the current fashion trends. This new version immediately sold out in contrast to the original design, which was left in their warehouse for a long time, and it was finally sold in vintage stores. Some years later, the daughter of the first artisan saw one of the reproduced tables in a shopping window and immediately recognized it. The table looked old and used; she was sure that this was the dining table of her family as she wasn’t aware of what had actually happened, and her childhood memories were blurry. She explained to the shop owner her story and how important it was for her to take it back at any cost. The shop owner found a great opportunity to raise the price of a table that no one wanted to buy and hid the truth. The daughter went home with the replica.
In this story, the wooden table was copied over and over again, and each time it was defined as something different. The boundaries of these definitions are blurry and difficult to separate. At the end of the story, the same copied wooden table was a ‘reproduction’ that was later named ‘replica.’ The table never physically changed; what changed was how it was perceived and the way it was intended to be perceived. In this intention, there was the element of deception.
In my research, a replica is an entity that pretends to be something that is not. Sometimes, as in the case of the paprika’s replica, an object is created as a replica, therefore with a deceptive intention. Other times, the object is used as a replica, as in the case of the wooden table. In the first case, the deceptive intention also applies to the physical characteristics of the object. The paprika’s replica was created with the intention to look like the paprika while it was a piece of clay. When I use a scaled model as a replica, the object itself is a representation of an actual space, while the way I use it makes it a replica.
In the end, a replica is not only a paradoxical copy or a fake copy but an entity that pretends to be something that it is not. This intention to trick the spectator is the key that distinguishes it from a representation or a reproduction. It is all about the awareness of the spectator. In my practice, I use to copy the existing environment and play with the copies and the spectator. Sometimes the copies work as representations, and it is the case when the spectator is aware of their ‘fakeness,’ and sometimes the copies become replicas; they completely mislead him to believe that they are original. However, the most interesting to me is this shifting moment, when my apparatuses change definitions and how that applies to the spectator.
Even though in each case, the apparatuses can possibly take more than one role or definition, I chose to call them all “replicas.” From now on, I will refer to my apparatuses as such, “replicas” in quotation marks.
My fascination with “replicas” led me to search how other artists approach the notion of a copy or a replica. I was wondering if, like the mirror, the copy also has hidden “powers.”
I found this interview of Francis Alys talking about The Fabiola Project, a collection of reproductions of the 1885 portrait of Fabiola by unknown artists. His views confirmed my thoughts of the copy/ replica giving power to the original. I would like to know more, so I decided to ask another artist about the subject of copying and replicating. (Tan & Berger, 2021)
Maurice Bogaert was the perfect candidate, not only because I admire his work but also because he touches key subjects in my research. You can see that only by reading the “about” section on his website.
So I asked him...
Hi Eleni,
Thank you again for your questions. I hope I can answer your questions properly. I am not a philosopher nor a theorist. I am an visual artist and I use the terms in my own way. I use them in the way that suits me best.
About fifteen years ago, I made a work titled: I copied all my CDs to A4 files, just in case. At the time, I had about 350 CDs that I put under the copier one by one to make a black and white copy. Just in case.
In the end, I made the work in an edition of 10. So 10 stacks of 350 CDs copied on A4. (Ironically I saved none of the copies. I even can’t find the documentation anymore). So much for the anecdote.
I also made the work because I wanted to say something about the value of the copy, or the value that we attribute to it. And what might be the difference between a copy and a multiple (as sort of an official copy) What I personally like about the work is that on the one hand, something is lost through copying (some might say, in the case of a photocopied CD, everything) on the other hand the copy gained a (visual) quality of it’s own.
By focusing purely on the visual aspect in the case of the CDs, the copy is stripped of its original function. By ignoring the original function, something is actually created that has an autonomous quality rather than that of a copy.
And at the same time, there is a beauty that arises during the act of copying. The glitches and the errors produce something that is difficult to predict in advance. It is this imperfection of the copy that appeals to me.
Once I made a copy of an episode of the Dutch soap series Onderweg naar Morgen. I rebuilt all the sets to scale and used these models to film the episode again with the same camera movement and editing.
I tried to make as good a copy as possible, but of course I succeeded to a certain extent.
Noman M Klein writes in his book The Vatican to Vegas A History of Special Effect amongst things about Baroque Theatre;
“(...) In Baroque Theatre however, sensing the fake was considered a glory. Special effects were designed to suggest hoax; that enhanced their art. They were Sculptural and painterly artifice invading the space (...) Thus, the machinery that brought this deception was supposed to intrude. For the story to ‘work’ ha to sense machinery offstage”.
In this text, Klein is not talking about copies per se, but about special effects, but for me the beauty of the copy is about the same thing; the errors and glitches make me enjoy the specific beauty of the copy.
When I talk about my own work, I almost always talk about copies or about the copying.
The replica, like the facsimile, seems to have a different status than the copy. The status of an official copy. The replica also has no flaws or glitches, the replica is at least as perfect as the original, maybe even better than the original. I actually never use the work replica in relation to my work. I like the autonomous quality of the copy, something that I think the replica has no place for.
I hope this helps you. And next time, I’ll be quicker with my reply.
All the best,
Maurice
On Baudrillard
Now that it is clear what a “replica” means in my practice and when it takes the role of a replica and when the role of a representation, I would like to justify my decision to use replication to create deceptive situations. What makes a “replica” the proper component of a deceptive situation?
This is a crucial question as by answering it, I make clear my intentions behind the deceptive situations. The deceptive situations that I create always aim to show different perspectives and dimensions of what someone would consider reality or what exists. Thus, the act of replication to achieve this goal makes perfect sense as by replicating specific elements, new perspectives emerge.
In addition, replication is directly linked to the era that we live in, surrounded by any kind of copies and virtual copies of these copies. Our societies are more and more attached to representations that control the way we live.
‘Once, the power to automatically capture and duplicate the world was the sole privilege of the mirror; now this power has been emulated by technological media’
(Maria- Laure Ryan,2015: 19)
However, when you touch the subject of representations, you can’t ignore Jean Baudrillard’s philosophy. Jean Baudrillard’s thinking is dominant in Media Theory Studies as he contemplates the contemporary, media-driven society through the concepts of simulacrum and simulation. As Marie - Laure Ryan writes:
“ The philosophy of Jean Baudrillard presents itself as a meditation on the status of the image in a society addicted to the duplication of the real by means of technology.”
In his essay“The precession of Simulacra” Baudrillard cites his theory of the successive phases of the image:
It is the reflection of a profound reality;
It masks and denatures a profound reality;
It masks the absence of a profound reality;
It has no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum.
(Baudrillard, 1994: 6)
According Baudrillard simulacrum is a copy without a prototype. A representation without a link to what we think it represents.
As a researcher trying to understand the properties and the meaning of the replicas, I can’t but compare the “image” with the “replica” and wonder what phase it belongs to. Of course, this is not a simple question to answer but a field to further research. It questions my intentions for the relationship between the replica and what they replicate; also between the spectator and how he perceives the replica concerning its original. Returning to the paprika, I will attempt to place it in Baudrillard’s scheme:
In the first phase: is the image of a real paprika, a picture or its reflection in the mirror.
In the second phase: is the clay replica made of the paprika.
In the third phase: is the photo of the clay replica taken in a way to looks like the real paprika.
And in the fourth stage; (in the simulacrum phase): is a clay paprika replica, made without any reference to a real paprika; it is perceived, though, as the paprika’s replica.
Of course, this paprika example is not entirely appropriate but rather my way to connect my practice with Baudrillard’s theory, which is crucial to understanding today’s multi-layered and media-driven reality. Moreover, Baudrillard doesn’t stop at the image’s phases but further discusses how this last phase where we are in creates a ‘hyperreality”; when the simulacrum takes the real’s place and becomes the “hyperreal.”
Using Baudrillard’s idea of “hyperreality” as a starting point I take a step further and find new ways to correlate the ‘replicas’ with the multiplicity of reality. If what we consider reality is already a network of representations that have lost their link with what they represent, hence simulacra, then replicating this ‘hyperreality’ creates a vicious circle. Thus, will this highlighted replication that I create make us aware of the simulacra around us?