Transcript
The following may be performed. If so, to the left of the stage an actor should sit
at a desk typing as he listens to the recording of a lecture played back on a
digital Dictaphone, which lies on the desk. As the man types, to his right the
computer screen, and hence the forming transcript, is projected at the speed at
which it is typed. Behind and to the right of this projection, another actor stands
behind a screen so that he cannot be seen from the audience. He can, however,
read the transcript as projected and so is to read the transcript as it is typed. His
performance should be digitally filmed and projected on the screen that blocks
the actor from the audience. The sound effects in the italicized intermissions
should also be performed by a hidden audience, but with the sound muffled as
directed. The sound of the lecture from the Dictaphone is to be audible, but not
clearly. The sound of the actor’s voice should be loud enough to be heard clearly.
There should be another person on stage typing the transcript on the basis of the
performance, which should also be projected to the right of the stage. Everything
else that follows from the end of this sentence is part of the transcript as written
as may be performed.
*
Transcript of a lecture digitally recorded on 19/7/2008. Transcript by David Batho
[Audience Noise: Coughing and rustling.]
“Thank you. Thank you. I‟m sorry I‟m so very late. Today I want to talk to you about
a quote I stumbled across in one of my old notebooks just the other day. Now, I‟m
reading from my notes that I typed up last night, so if you find I‟m going too fast or
too unclear then please shout at me to slow down. OK.”
[Cough. Audience noise subsides.]
“Twenty years ago I came across a book by the historian Sir. Ernest Lea in a small
bookshop in Athens. The book was for the most part a pretty dull account of the
history of the mechanics of the printing press. Towards the end of the book, however,
I found this rather strange passage, which doesn‟t really sit well with the rest of the
work, and I wrote it down:
“§34. Therefore, we can assuredly submit, one day the following sentences will be true: „As
soon as this sentence is written it will be already beyond itself; it will lose itself because it
will be indistinguishable from a copy of itself. Even now it is already just a copy, and nothing
more.‟” (E. Lea, 1876, A History of Printing in Europe 1439-1850)
This is from the last chapter of the book where Lea speculates as to the future
developments of printing technology. As far as I can recall there was no further
explanation beyond this obscure passage as to what exactly he meant…”
[Pause. Gulp of water.]
“…And it is in no way clear how he we might „assuredly submit‟ such a statement,
given what he said up to that point.
“My reason for mentioning it here is two-fold. On the one hand, I want to preserve it
for posterity (the book was in a bad state when I saw it first, so surely now it‟s
altogether ruined, and I haven‟t been able to find another copy since), while on the
other hand I want to look at whether his prophecy has come to pass: is it true that the
sentence he mentions is now true?
“So that‟s the question I want at least to try and pose today. Well, you might ask,
what does it mean to say that a sentence is beyond itself just insofar as it‟s been
written? I think to begin to unravel this we should look at the context that surrounds
his claim. As I mentioned, I found the passage in a work on the history of the
mechanics of the printing press, more specifically, in a chapter on the possible future
developments of the printing press. So, we might surmise, Lea is trying to get at
something to do with the mechanics of reproduction that would mean that the thing
produced in the production would be formed in the first place as a copy… Yes?”
[Muffled question from the audience]
“Yes.”
[Question continues.]
“Yes I see.”
[Question continues and ends.]
“Yes I see. Well that‟s a very interesting question, but shall we leave it „till the end?
Please do remind me to get back to it; it touches on something very important indeed,
but we won‟t see quite why until later.
“But as I was saying, Lea is trying to get at something to do with the mechanics of
reproduction that would mean that the thing produced in the production would be
formed in the first place as a copy: at some point, he reckons, we would reach a point
in the development of printing technology such that the very creation of something in
print means that there are no originals, that something originally appears as a copy.
Now if that’s his point, then we might be in a better position to understand what he
might mean by that.
“`To begin with, think of the following example: what is a digital photograph? It
looks like the product of digital photography is a digital file, a collection of data in a
kind of binary package. So one way of thinking of digital photographs is to say that
they are patterns of ones and zeros that can be interpreted by a piece of software as a
photograph but that before they are interpreted, the data are just patterns of ones and
zeros.
“Now, say my digital camera is very old and it only has the same resolution as my
equally old computer screen: 1024 by 768. Furthermore, both my camera and
computer screen are very basic and can only produce 6 shades of grey. So there are a
limited number of permutations and combinations of the pixels and the camera
records the permutation that best matches the scene outside and seals it in a discrete
packet of binary code called a „file‟ – this is a digital photograph.
“But imagine that some whizz-kid decided to put together a bit of software that just
runs through the permutations of pixels on a screen until all those permutations had
been realised and saved as individual discreet „files‟. Well, in that case, once the
software had finished running, there would be no photograph that I could take with
my camera that wouldn‟t already exist in the storage banks of that computer software.
So then we could ask the question: which is the original photograph – the one that I
took with my camera, or the one arranged by the computer?
“The one arranged by the computer certainly predates the one taken by the camera,
but is there a difference between the two? (Actually, come to think of it, I might want
to say that the two photographs do not predate each other: if the two files are
absolutely identical, then it doesn‟t even make sense to ask which came before the
other; even in that respect they would be indiscernible)
“What I want to suggest here is that Lea had the insight that at some point the means
of reproduction would be exactly the same as the means of production and that given
this state of affairs there would be no difference between a copy and an original:
everything produced would be at the same time reproduced because there would be,
in principle, no discernable difference between the „original‟, on the one hand, and the
„copy‟ on the other. Yes?”
[Long muffled question from the audience]
[Lecturer laughs.]
“Yes well were I claiming to be putting forward a work of philosophy you might have
sunk me there. But I make no such claim! So I think I‟ll be alright for now; never
forget that this is an English Literature course!”
[Soft laughter from audience.]
“So, David‟s objection aside for now, we might finally reformulate the question
behind Lea‟s thought as follows: have we reached a point at which the means of
reproduction are equivalent to the means of production such that a digital product is
always already a re-product, a copy, because it is in principle indiscernible from a
copy of itself?”
[Pause. Cough from audience. Gulp of water.]
“I have lots more written here, as you can see, but unfortunately my tardiness has cut
into the hour somewhat, so you‟ll have to make do with just a little more so that we
have enough time for a couple of questions.
“So, skipping forward to my conclusion: Given all of the above, the following
situation seems plausible: Imagine the courtroom on the day of the defense of one of
these students who has been charged with copyright infringement for sharing
thousands of MP3s illegally online. In that case, so to speak, one can imagine that the
defense might argue that because there was never any physical version of „Exhibit Z‟,
as it was only ever a digital file, there is no sense in saying that anybody in particular
owns that file: there was never any original to own. A copy of a digital file is, as we
have seen, perfectly identical to the „original‟ of that file. Now, because there is
nothing but a pattern of ones and zeros to replicate, that pattern can be replicated
exactly. This means that there can be a perfect copy of the first file without any loss
of data whatsoever. So there is no difference between a „copy‟ and the „original‟.
Which means just that there is no such thing as „an original‟!
“Or maybe this means that everything, including each copy, is an original – but then
would that be too nonsensical? But either way, the troubling thing about this would,
surely, be that authorship would be expanded either too far (as in the case with these
lawsuits where the record companies rather megalomaniacally claim to own
everything, copies and all) or restricted too tightly (as in the case where everything is
a copy and hence, in a sense, unauthored). So at the very least we have a problem of
authorship here. And if we have a problem of authorship, then how do we judge the
content? But I‟ve waffled off track.
“So it looks like Lea‟s prophesy has come true! So long as the sentence „As soon as
this sentence is written it will be already beyond itself; it will lose itself because it
will be indistinguishable from a copy of itself‟ is typed on a word processor then it is
already a copy of itself because it is in principle indistinguishable from a copy of
itself!
“Right, that‟s all you‟re getting out of me for now. Questions? Yes, Hannah?”
[Question from audience]
“Hang on, let me see if I understand you. So you‟re saying that if it‟s right to say that
something created digitally is always already a copy, then whenever that „copy‟ is
first read or played or screened, or whatever, then it ceases to be a copy and becomes,
as it were, the original out of the copy? Yes? OK: Why is that?”
[Questioner replies]
“Ah I see! Yes that would make a lot of sense. Thank you very much! Now who was
it that asked a question earlier? Oh yes, Tom. Can you repeat what you said, for the
benefit of everyone here?”
[Question from audience.]
[Knock on door. Muffled voices]
“I‟m very sorry but it, yes, it looks like we‟re over time. Can you come and see me in
my office hour, Tom? Sorry for being so late everyone! I‟ll make it up in next week‟s
lecture, which will be back on topic. The reading is on the reading list.”
[Coughs, ambient noise as people vacate the theatre.]
Transcript typed from the digital recording by D. Batho on the 23/10/2010
*