Theory/Create Mythical Information: The Problems of Originality in Digital Art Rich White Image, text, music/sound, film etc. practically all the media used to create and/or show art now exists digitally. In many cases (most obviously with digital/net.art) this work exists and is shown in digital form (film/image projections, multimedia, cdrom, online.) In other cases the work was created through a digital process and then exhibited as a hard copy (digital print.) What I am going to address in this writing are the problems and concerns that arise through this method of practice in regard to their perceived value and originality. By originality I do not mean whether the work has been done before or if it is in any way derivative, but whether it, by it’s very nature of being digital, has an original, and if so where does this original reside? We shall assume that the ‘art’ of which I discuss has an inherent value. Mp3/ jpg/ mpg/ wav/ gif/ tif/ mov/ avi etc. Can these file types (and many others) be ‘originals?’ Can I make an original file, an original jpg? How do I make it original? If the image, for example, was created on computer from various sources (like a collage or composite) is this first file that I save on my hard drive the original? If the image is created from scratch, without any imported information, is this even more pure and original? Can I exhibit a disk claiming it contains the only file, the only existing binary information for producing an image that I have made – is this the original? The information contained on the disk is not solid – you can hold the disk, but you can’t hold the information, it exists in a different state and has to be contained and stored in a specialised environment. More often now there seems to be no real need for a tangible, tactile thing of value. The things that we hold, view or listen to are only necessary to display/playback the information we require. Visual and aural stimuli can be contained, stored and retrieved digitally. Tactile art, at the moment, is exempt from this. Through electronic, digital and net.art art is becoming ethereal. Like memories we can retrieve an artwork from the internet through our computers and view work onscreen. When this is the case, are we looking at an original? Thoughts are considered original (as I mentioned in the introduction this origin refers to its starting point, not the fact of whether it has been done before.) We make thoughts real by speaking, writing, drawing, gesture, making and so on. In this way are the things we produce copies of what is inside us? Are the ideas of the artist more important than the art, or is the art more important because it is the proof of the artist’s ideas? This is where the difference between human and digital comes into play. A person cannot produce identical versions of artworks purely by hand. There are always differences. The uniqueness of an artwork is part of what gives it its value. There are not two ‘Mona Lisas,’ there is only one ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. A digital source can be reproduced for as long as physically possible – digital prints, copies of video tapes and cdroms. These things are not unique. A hard copy is just that – a copy. The original is data. Data, like the digital art it represents, is ethereal. It exists, as mentioned earlier, in a different state. This state is mythical in the sense that it is a concept that when translated and re-presented we can comprehend and understand. Myth is what is not real but by its induction into the consciousness becomes hyperreal, real to those that comprehend. Art has this ability. Very often the memory of an artwork is more important to the viewer than the actual work. This mnemonic version of the work is mythical and unique to the viewer - it exists as information in the mind and can be retrieved at will. The question of ownership of the digital information is a matter of proving you hold/created the primary source - intellectual property. Again the emphasis seems to be on what is in the head of the artist/creator. While writing this I am creating for the first time this string of letters and words in an attempt to externalise what is in my own mind. The .txt file in which this information is saved can be copied over and over again and identifying which was the first one is extremely difficult. The computer and the file itself keep records of the files information but this can be altered, doctored or falsified. The question this raises for art is ‘where does the value reside if the original is data?’ In the case of a digital print do I, like etchings, print off a limited number and then delete the file (the ‘plate’) or can I exhibit and sell the data? Let us assume that value is created by a combination of the object’s rarity, the skill involved in its creation and any mythical presence that has developed around it. A piece of data is not an object, it is easily reproduced and various levels of skill can be attributed to its creation. It is still possible for it to develop a mythical presence. A website, for instance, may garner acclaim among artistic circles for its design and interactive artworks. As a viewer you may hear about this site and have parts of it described to you. Before you actually view the site you have an impression of what is going to happen – you are preconditioned with a mythical version of the work. Suddenly the site is taken off line permanently, but fortunately someone else has stored all the files from the site on their own server. People can now visit this copy of the site that is exactly the same as the original. For all intents and purposes this is the same site. Does the value remain? Are you looking at an 'original'? With the 'create' half of this project i am going to address these issues and create work as a response, demonstration and attempted solution to these problems.