Читать книгу Inflection 06: Originals - Beatriz Colomina - Страница 6

THE REAL DEAL

REPLICATING AN AUTHENTIC DAY IN DENMARK

Deniz Balik Lokce

Located on top of large rocks at Langelinie, a pier in Copenhagen Harbor, sits the bronze Little Mermaid Statue, cast by the Danish sculptor Edvard Eriksen in 1913. As a unique work of art, it became a national symbol of Denmark and one of the most significant and photographed landmarks in the city. At the same time, it has received extensive media coverage due to frequent vandalism since the early 1960s. Its status as an icon makes it a continuous target, having been covered with a variety of colourful paints, decapitated thrice, her body damaged and her arm cut off once. For Jorgen Nash, the artist who claims to have decapitated the statue in 1964, these events of vandalism show that the Little Mermaid statue has broken with tradition and entered a new era for modern and industrialised culture.¹

After every attempt to damage the sculpture, its surface has been restored. While destroyed parts have been recast from the original plaster mould, damaged ones have been re-attached to the body. Chemical or physical analysis could reveal which parts of the statue were recast after the completion of the original, which was cast in one piece. Cultural critic Walter Benjamin noted that the uniqueness of a work of art is derived from its authenticity. This becomes problematic for the fragmented body of the Little Mermaid statue, as it is no longer the single piece of material that Eriksen cast in 1913.

The history of the statue is a starting point to probe the borders of original and copy. It serves to spotlight Benjamin’s concept of aura and to explore the limits of hyperreal spatial experiences and atmospheres produced through this dialectic, drawing from the theories of Jean Baudrillard and Umberto Eco. Exploring two collaborative projects by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), namely the Danish Pavilion and the Superkilen Urban Park, it becomes evident that BIG uses ‘copy and paste’ as a design manoeuvre to produce replicas that offer more than the original object itself.

According to Benjamin, the quality of aura is deeply rooted in a traditional work of art. Defined as a unique atmosphere of contemplation, Benjamin grasps aura as an intangible distance between a spectator and a gazed object. The earliest artworks were created for ritualistic and religious praxis, produced as ceremonial objects. With advanced mechanical reproduction, the work of art sheds its ceremonial value and instead achieves exhibition value. It becomes reproducible, leading to the loss of its uniqueness and authenticity, or the “decay of the aura.”²

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard’s concept of aura shifts, as he notes that aura has survived the Industrial Revolution by being reinvented within the context of pure visuality, commodity, and superficiality over meaning, value, and content.³ This paradigm shift in the concept of aura traces the cultural move from exhibition value to communicative value, from contemplation and self-reflection to spectacle, fame, and advertising. In the seminal work, Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard explores his ideas on copy, simulation, and hyperreality. According to Baudrillard, a simulacrum is an image that simulates reality and is classified into three orders as counterfeit, production, and simulation.

The first order, counterfeit, is based on the image as a copy and obvious theatrical illusion; the image is distinguishable as a counterfeit when compared to the authentic version. The second order, production, is materialised by mass-production, blurring the boundaries of reality and representation with a well-made mechanical reproduction. The first two orders operate at the level of form, rather than relations and structures, and value the success of the replica by comparing it to the original. The third order, simulation, replaces the authentic with an indistinguishable representation termed ‘hyperreality.’⁴ Links to the original source are no longer drawn. Like Baudrillard, Umberto Eco questions the previously-well-defined borders of the original and the copy. For Eco, the objective of hyperreal reproductions is to provide people with satisfaction, ensuring they do not feel the need to acquire the original. Hyperreality, or the “absolute fake,” take place of the original and becomes its substitute.⁵

Hans Gerber, The Little Mermaid Statue, 1958, Langelinie, Copenhagen. Image courtesy of ETH-Bibliothek Zürich.

Hans Gerber, The Little Mermaid Statue, 1958, Langelinie, Copenhagen. Image courtesy of ETH-Bibliothek Zürich.

Baudrillard and Eco describe the loss of distinction between the original and the copy, resulting in equal representations in terms of reality. In hyperreality, the ability to reproduce the original an indefinite number of times becomes possible.⁶ This results in a copy of a copy, or an image of an image. As will be elaborated below, the interpretation of hyperreality by Baudrillard and Eco decimates the intangible distance between spectator and the object, as the original and the copy become interchangeable.

Originals in China, Replicas in Copenhagen:

The Little Mermaid Statue

“Don’t you think China already has its share of copies?”⁷ These words belong to architect Bjarke Ingels, who proposed exhibiting the original Little Mermaid statue at the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai. Visitors would view “not a copy, but the real thing.”⁸ Walking around the European area of the site, visitors observed the Danish Pavilion with its white-painted fluid form, which curved around and crossed itself. Designed in collaboration with the engineering office Arup and the interior and exhibition design agency 2+1, the pavilion rose 12 meters and allowed people to walk through and over. Its double loop form dictated a continuous linear ramp that oriented visitors, both pedestrians and bikers, from the entrance to the roof terrace, where they could have a full view of the World Expo site. A courtyard pool was constructed at the centre of the ground level as a representation of a traditional Copenhagen harbour bath. Central to this pool, the Little Mermaid statue was located as an attraction point.

The Little Mermaid Statue at the courtyard pool of the Danish Pavilion, World Expo 2010 Shanghai. All following images courtesy of author.

Resonating in media and discussed by the government and public, BIG’s proposal to ship the statue to be temporarily displayed in Shanghai caused a huge controversy.⁹ For the first time in its history, the Little Mermaid Statue would leave its home. While the statue was away in China, a copy cast by Eriksen was placed in Copenhagen, culminating in discussions of the uniqueness of the original statue at Langelinie.¹⁰ Eco argues that the attribution of fake is perplexing within the context of sculpture, be it a plaster cast or a bronze recasting, if specific technical modes of production are employed.¹¹

There would be no physical distinction between the original cast and the recasting. However, Benjamin believes that the authentic qualities of an original artwork are attributed to its aura and its specific presence in time, evoked by the marks of aging and weathering. Therefore, the technique of reproduction cannot define an original or a copy, as a traditional work of art is singular and therefore, cannot be mechanically reproduced.¹² Although reproduced from the original mould, the copy of the Little Mermaid statue did not testify to history. It was not exposed to vandalism or the close attention of the original. The appearance and the material of the original at Langelinie were merely replicated.

As a mobile work of art like a painting or photograph, the statue managed to captivate spectators in Shanghai. However, its new context of a simulated harbour in a sterile, white container, triggered a shift in its aura and atmosphere. At Langelinie, the statue is a public artwork for the gaze of the masses, however, as a national symbol, or inanimate celebrity figure, the statue has not acquired exhibition value. Masses consume the statue over a short period, as a spectacle without concentration or contemplation, be it in Copenhagen or Shanghai. In our image-laden culture, its celebrity character is reproduced to create spectacle, fame, and desire. The original aura of the statue is lost.

Bicycle lane and parking at the roof terrace of the Danish Pavilion, World Expo 2010, Shanghai.

Fountain simulating a playground at the roof terrace of the Danish Pavilion, World Expo 2010, Shanghai.

An Ordinary Day in Denmark as Hyperreality

Publicised with the phrase, “Try out how life is lived in Denmark” in an early poster, the Danish Pavilion sought to present a compact version of a sustainable Danish city.¹³ Ingels claimed that expo pavilions traditionally introduce and display countries and their culture via superficial images and words. In response, the architects of the Danish Pavilion in Shanghai would “deliver the real deal.”¹⁴ BIG not only transported the Little Mermaid statue but also shipped one million litres of water from Copenhagen Harbour to the courtyard pool in Shanghai, allowing visitors to experience the sensation of swimming in the clean harbour water of Copenhagen.

The roof terrace supported various activities, including bicycle parking, family picnics, playing in sprinkling water from the fountain, enjoying the roof bar and relaxing on a bench, simulating Danish recreational areas on a sunny day. Following the looping ramp, which simulated the blue bicycle lanes on the streets of Copenhagen, visitors could ride a bike.

Beyond viewing the exhibitions as mere spectacle, Ingels expected people to picture imaginary situations in their minds to trigger excitement and amusement during the activity: “Visitors could feel the thrill of riding a bike through the city rather than sitting in a traffic jam, or looking endlessly for a parking spot.”¹⁵ Recalling Baudrillard, the pavilion emerges as a fusion of simulation, imagination, and reality, created by original objects transported abroad for its visitors to experience an ordinary day in Denmark.

Mediated by the third order of simulacra, the Danish Pavilion publicised itself as a hyperreal Denmark experience. The visitors in Shanghai might never have been to Denmark, but through the amusements that were replicated in the pavilion, they had an opportunity to simulate the sustainable Copenhagen lifestyle. However, some of the activities were not suitable to be directly copied from Denmark to China. For example, the difference between the Chinese and Danish bicycle mechanisms caused complications and accidents on bicycle lanes, which resulted in the temporary closure of the biking activity. Moreover, due to concerns surrounding the swimming ability of potential visitors, the simulation of swimming in the harbour water was cancelled before the Expo opened.¹⁶ These complications caused a clash in the simulacra and affected the hyperreal experience of Danish life, rendering visitors as spectators rather than participants.

Copies as ‘Better’ Objects Than Originals

Superkilen Urban Park in Copenhagen is another copy and paste manoeuvre BIG in collaboration with landscape architecture office Topotek1 and artist group Superflex. Constructed in 2012 in a derelict area, the park occupies an area of three hectares with a length of 750 metres.¹⁷ It is situated in the dense residential neighbourhood of Norrebro, an ethnically diverse district of Copenhagen with more than 60 nationalities.¹⁸ The park was split into three zones, each with a different colour, acknowledging the coexisting multicultural society. The Red Square, which is most suitable for sports and cultural activities, is overwhelmingly covered in red and pink shades. Undulating white stripes on the black asphalt ground of The Black Market, the middle section of which is designed for social activities and plays. The most extensive section, The Green Park, is organised to accommodate sport and picnics.

Throughout the park, the designers installed and displayed more than a hundred pieces of original and replica urban furniture. Each item is inspired by the 60 nationalities in Norrebro: Benches, tables, rubbish bins, trees and plants, murals, fitness equipment, sports fields, playground structures, and lighting elements. Some of these objects were purchased from catalogues or transported from their countries of origin. Other objects were recreated from photographs or redesigned in Copenhagen.¹⁹ Martin Rein- Cano from Topotek1 compares Superkilen with the traditional praxis of copy and paste in the 17th-century English Romantic gardens, which re-contextualised structures and elements from divergent cultures.²⁰

Not all of the objects are authentic, and it is challenging to differentiate the replicas from the originals. Some of the items were transported directly from their country of origin, including soil from Palestine and a double chair from Mexico. Others were reconstructed on-site, such as the Octopus Slide from Japan.²¹ As Ingels notes, 30 objects were redesigned from documents out of necessity.²² For example, a slide from Chernobyl, the original inaccessible due to radio activity, and a swing from Afghanistan are exact replicas reconstructed from archival photographs.²³ The designers of Superkilen playfully reported that they went and caught the metal bull from Spain, insinuating that they installed the original one at Superkilen. However, in reality, they had created a one to three scaled-down replica to be installed at the park.²⁴

Gyldholm Moller from BIG admits to ‘necessary’ modifications and transformations made to some objects, such as the swing bench from Iraq and fitness equipment from Turkey, to ensure they complied with Danish standards and safety regulations.²⁵

The designers claim that the redesigned version for some objects were equipped with enhanced capacity or achieved better quality than the originals, as in the case of the Landi bench from Switzerland and a neon sign from Qatar.²⁶ For Benjamin, manual reproduction is easily described as counterfeit, since the authority of the original maintains its presence. Technical reproduction goes beyond the dialectics of original and copy by introducing variations. The ability to reterritorialise fixed objects or structure becomes possible and to see images and movements that are missed by the naked eye or invisible to human perception.²⁷ From the perspective of Benjamin, the method of reproduction at Superkilen was deployed as an instrument of experimentation, to test for improved appearance, enhanced function, and safer usage. These features would be impossible to achieve with the original pieces alone.

Superkilen as a Theme Park

Artist Rasmus Nielsen from Superflex compares Superkilen to a fun park, particularly the original vision of Epcot Center, a theme park at the Walt Disney World Resort, which was to have been a high-tech and efficiently planned city for people to inhabit, work, and play.²⁸ The definition of themed space refers to simulating a different time, culture, and alternative way of living.

A theme park offers its visitors singular and personal experiences in artificially-created environments and atmospheres.²⁹ Produced as commodities, the Disney Corporation theme parks integrate entertainment, illusion, fantasy, and desire. For Baudrillard, they are much more than mere representations of imagination. They are capable of substituting reality for a much more perfect, irresistible, and credible appearance.³⁰ Eco evaluates Disneyland as a mythical representation of daily life and authentic copy, which is newer and more fulfilling than real life.³¹

Looking to Superkilen, the replicated objects cannot be differentiated from the originals. According to Eco, simulacra assimilate reality and produce hyperreality in the appearance of a themed urban park. Mediated by the third order of simulacra, the environment of Superkilen intends to make users feel as if they are at home. By installing familiar urban furniture from the home country of locals, the designers transform dreams and hopes into a mixture of reality, spectacle, and commodity. These replicas and copies produce a more vivid environment, with more accessible objects from all around the world in a safer atmosphere. As a result, original objects become forgotten memories, as the interpretation and perception of the replicas replace that of the original objects

The Danish Pavilion and the Superkilen Urban Park make use of a combination of originals and copies to generate hyperreal atmospheres. The intention is to replicate the authenticity of daily life, the feeling of strolling in Denmark or ones home country in the case of Supkerkilen. The strategy of transporting originals to the artificial environment of the Danish Pavilion was to simulate the sustainable Danish city life. In comparison, at Superkilen the technique of reproduction and replication was used to improve aesthetics and enhance function for safer usage. To achieve these intentions would be challenging without BIG’s exploitation of copy and paste as a design manoeuvre.

While it is difficult to differentiate replicas from originals, objects displayed as public collage become exhibits rather than authentic, immersive experiences. The act of decontextualisation and replication does not result in success at all times. Unanticipated complications can cause a clash in the simulacra and affect the hyperreal experience of an authentic day in Denmark. Regardless, the hyperreal environments created at the Danish Pavilion and Superkilen blur the distinct and clear borders of original and copy. They substitute reality for a much more fulfilling, credible, and newer artificial appearance in favour of spectacle, dream, and desire.

Turkish fitness equipment and Thai boxing ring in The Red Square of Superkilen Urban Park.

Iraqi swing bench and Chilean stencil in The Red Square of Superkilen Urban Park.

Tunisian bench and Armenian picnic tables in The Green Park of Superkilen Urban Park.

Belgian bench, Mexican double chair and Japanese Octopus slide in The Black Market of Superkilen Urban Park.

01Finn Hauberg Mortensen, “The Little Mermaid: Icon and Disneyfication,” Scandinavian Studies 80, no. 4 (2008): 442.

02Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken, 1969), 221-223.

03Jean Baudrillard, The Conspiracy of Art, ed. Sylvère Lotringer, trans. Ames Hodges (New York, Los Angeles: Semiotexte, 2005), 117,124.

04Jean Baudrillard, Symbolic Exchange and Death, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant (London; Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998), 50–56,72–75.

05Umberto Eco, “Travels in Hyperreality,” in Travels in Hyperreality: Essays, trans. William Weaver (London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986), 6–8,19.

06Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, trans. S. F. Glaser (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994), 1,3; Eco, Travels, 19.

07Bjarke Ingels, Yes is More: An Archicomic on Architectural Evolution (Cologne: Taschen, 2010), 41.

08Bjarke Ingels, “The Real Deal,” Perspecta 42 (2010): 106.

09Ingels, Yes is More, 44; Bjarke Ingels, Hot to Cold: An Odyssey of Architectural Adaptation (Cologne: Taschen, 2015), 142; Ingels, “The Real Deal,” 107.

10John Tagliabue, “A Little Danish Mermaid Comes Up for Air in China,” New York Times, published 28 April, 2010, 6.

11Eco, Travels, 36.

12Benjamin, “The Work of Art,” 218,220.

13Carina Ren and Szilvia Gyimóthy, “Transforming and Contesting National Branding Strategies: Denmark at the Expo 2010,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 9, no.1 (2013): 25.

14Ingels, Yes is More, 41.

15Ingels, Hot to Cold, 131.

16Ren and Gyimóthy, “Transforming,” 23,25.

17Ingels, Hot to Cold, 418.

18Ida Sandström, “The Fragmentary Demand: Superkilen in Nørrebro,” in Urban Squares: Spatio-temporal Studies of Design and Everyday Life in the Öresund Region, ed. Mattias Kärrholm (Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2015), 119.

19Barbara Steiner, “Beyond Being Nice,” in Superkilen, ed. Barbara Steiner (Stockholm: Arvinius + Orfeus Publishing, 2013), 16.

20Bjarke Ingels, Martin Rein-Cano, Rasmus Nielsen, and Tina Saaby, “Red, Black, and Green (Topography and Typology),” in Superkilen, ed. Barbara Steiner (Stockholm: Arvinius + Orfeus Publishing, 2013), 30.

21Bjarke Ingels, Nanna Gyldholm Møller, Martin Rein-Cano, Bjørnstjerne Christiansen, Jakob Fenger, and Rasmus Nielsen, “Imagine a Moroccan Fountain! (Selection and Realisation),” in Superkilen, ed. Barbara Steiner (Stockholm: Arvinius + Orfeus Publishing, 2013), 59,63; Barbara Steiner, “Soil from Palestine,” in Superkilen, ed. Barbara Steiner (Stockholm: Arvinius + Orfeus Publishing, 2013), 157–160.

22Ingels et al., “Imagine a Moroccan Fountain!” 59.

23Ingels, Hot to Cold, 419; Barbara Steiner, “Index: Objects, Tress, and Pavings,” in Superkilen, ed. Barbara Steiner (Stockholm: Arvinius + Orfeus Publishing, 2013), 188,204.

24Ingels et al., “Imagine a Moroccan Fountain!” 56.

25Ibid., 58.

26Ibid., 63; Steiner, “Index,” 203.

27Benjamin, “The Work of Art,” 220.

28Ingels et al., “Red, Black, and Green,” 31.

29Scott A. Lukas, “The Themed Space: Locating Culture, Nation, and Self,” in The Themed Space: Locating Culture, Nation, and Self, ed. S. A. Lukas (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007), 8.

30Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, 12; Jean Baudrillard, Screened Out, trans. C. Turner (New York: Verso Books, 2002), 151.

31Eco, Travels, 43–48.