While re-reading the course material (pp.72-74) I had some critical remarks on some statements.

Presentation as related to presence in time and space:
=> This seems to be a rather a realist and materialistic perspective that the ‘model’ had to be physicially there with the artist. I would rather widen this perspective with the phenomenlogical term  ‘noema’ (Husserl etc.) that involved mental and perceptual experience of any object (see also my thoughts on the Elephant article about ‘Speculative Realism and OOO

Stefan513593 - Part 3 - log - Presentation

Stefan513593 – Part 3 – log – Presentation

Presentation as Re-presentation:

The course material is making an analogy between ‘to represent’ and ‘to resemble’ (having a likeli-ness), the first as one-directional and the latter in both ways. I do see that it also relates to the term ‘to present’. The linguistic root of ‘re-presentation’ , the ‘re-‘ as an act of repeting, reproducing. As ‘re-presentation’ is one-directional from e.g the artist towards the object, than ‘presentation’ is one directional towards the audience. One can say the ‘representation’ is the making of a copy, the ‘presentation’ is conveying meaning of something to others. This can be a copy (e.g. presentating information, facts, pictures) or the original (presenting own thoughts, on site visits etc.)


Copy and model / autographic versus allographic

First I had to look up what allograph means (Merriam-Webster: Letter representing shapes, mulitple letters representing phonemes). Or the derived meaning of writing a book for somebody else.

What I found oversimplified was the differentiation into ‘binaries’  by

  • ‘autographic’ versus ‘allographic’;

  • work of art versus work of literature, music, photographic;

  • intuititively forgeable versus non-forgeable arts

  • first-ness vs. reproduction;

  • hand-made versus editions;

  • values for uniqueness versus content meaning.

Considering the quantity of visual images in the world and quantity of written texts or recorded music, I would guess that in our times more pictures are distributed than texts. Also, how many gallery or museum visitors are there versus number going to life concert or author’s reading? I can see that in all fields the excitement of the uniqueness of feeling a physical presence with the object versus a ‘virtual’ digitalized encounter. And its goes beyond the mere ‘layer of intrigue’ as stated in the course material.

Especially in a more and more digitalized and de-materialized world the object-ness and the physical presence matters and provides layers of meaning as well as personal experience of ‘spectacle’.

I was curious to know more about the difference online versus physcial encounters in art, music, and literature. Was quite tough to get easily some numbers. Eventually, I found some and stopped searching further, getting annoyed by numbers  – that perhaps do not tell that much.

Some facts about cultural presence
[all accessed 05 July 2017]

Physical world:

2016: 91 Millions concert visitors in North America (source:

201x: ‘850 million museums visits each year to American museums’ (source:

Books available in the world: 130 million (2010, source:

Virtual World:

Music tracks available online: around 150 Million (source:

Pictures available online:  1.2 Trillion photos taken 2017 (source:



Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: