In this blog post, we delve deeply into the boundary between the real and the fake, and their respective values.
The movie ‘The Matrix’ gained immense popularity upon release for its spectacular action sequences, but it became even more famous thanks to the philosophical and religious messages hidden within the film. The topic we wish to discuss relates to the red pill Neo encounters when meeting Morpheus in the movie. Morpheus presents Neo with a blue pill, allowing him to continue living in the virtual reality of the Matrix, and a red pill, enabling him to live in reality. He demands Neo choose one. Neo chose the red pill and returned to reality, but it is worth considering whether this choice demonstrates that “reality holds greater value than virtual reality.”
Before diving into the discussion, let’s make two assumptions. The first assumption is that after the choice, life in both worlds is completely identical. The second assumption is that after the choice, one is unaware that another world exists and doesn’t even remember having made the choice. These two assumptions lead us to the conclusion that the difference between reality and virtual reality is merely the difference between real and fake. Therefore, the question of comparing the value of reality and virtual reality connects to the question: “Does the real truly hold higher value than the fake?” My argument regarding this question is: “While the value of the fake does not surpass that of the real, the fake can possess value equal to the real.” To support this argument, I will present my case by refuting the opinion that the value of the real is inherently higher.
According to the art theory of German philosopher Walter Benjamin (1892–1940), genuine works possess an ‘aura’. ‘Aura’ refers to the unique, inimitable ‘atmosphere’ inherent in a work of art. For example, comparing the experience of viewing Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa’ in person versus viewing a photograph of it in a da Vinci art book, one typically feels a more special emotion and unique atmosphere when viewing the Mona Lisa directly. Benjamin explains two reasons why we perceive this aura. The first reason lies in the objective characteristics of the artwork itself. The original possesses authenticity and uniqueness, clearly distinguishing it from reproductions, and its value and meaning can differ. The second reason is that artworks possess a subjective character formed by human experience and perception. Originally, artworks embodied transcendent values like magic or ritual, or religious worship values like devotion to the divine. Therefore, traditional artworks were placed in inaccessible locations rather than publicly displayed, making it difficult for ordinary people to access them. This is why the authority of artworks—their aura—could be maintained.
Let us first discuss Benjamin’s first argument: the originality and uniqueness of the genuine. In Benjamin’s time, reproducing or duplicating artworks was difficult. Therefore, artworks could only exist as originals. Even if one attempted to produce the same work again, technological limitations meant it could never be identical, thus possessing uniqueness. However, modern society differs from the past. While the authenticity of the original, the real thing, remains undeniable, the technological ability to perfectly replicate originals has gradually eroded their uniqueness. Consequently, the aura inherent to the original has also weakened. Even devices we use daily, like smartphones or computers, clearly have an original version, but distinguishing which is the original and which is a copy has become difficult. These items can exist simultaneously across multiple locations and be reproduced countless times, meaning the uniqueness inherent to the genuine article has vanished.
To further discuss the originality of the genuine article, it is undeniable that it possesses the characteristic of being an original precisely because only one exists.
However, with the advancement of replication technology, distinguishing originals from copies has become nearly impossible without expert opinion or certification. This raises the question: “What if there are no experts or certificates capable of discerning them?” In such a case, even if the genuine item possesses the characteristic of being an original, since no one can distinguish it from a fake, the value of the genuine item cannot be judged higher than that of the fake.
Next, let us discuss Benjamin’s second claim that the genuine possesses a subjective character formed by human experience and subjectivity. The aura of an artwork is generated from the society it belongs to, along with that society’s culture, history, and traditions. Even the same artwork can have a varied aura depending on the society or era. The value of an artwork is determined by how it is received by the audience, based on the forms and values of the society they belong to. In modern society, technological reproduction enables mass production unlike the past, increasing the accessibility of artworks and broadening the cultural base. However, simultaneously, the authority of the original has been destroyed, and the aura of the original has been damaged. That is, in modern society, the aura of the original has diminished compared to Benjamin’s era. In Benjamin’s time, due to technical limitations, reproductions were not completely identical to the original; even if they appeared the same, they could be distinguished. This was why the original could retain its value. However, consider the smartphones we commonly use today. While originals and copies exist, technological advancement has made them nearly indistinguishable, rendering their differentiation practically impossible. Consequently, the value of the original has declined. Could you really pay more for a smartphone of the same type simply because it’s labeled as an original? Of course, individual preferences may vary, but if no one can determine authenticity, people won’t pay a premium just because something is labeled genuine. Ultimately, people will choose based on their own values.
Finally, I’d like to mention one more thing about aura. I have this question: “Does aura truly only emanate from the genuine?” In my view, what generates aura isn’t derived from the genuine item itself, but is influenced by external factors like the surrounding environment. In the earlier example of the Mona Lisa, the genuine piece was viewed in a museum-like setting, while the replica was viewed through a photo album. In this case, the difference in viewing method means the experience of seeing the work within the museum’s solemn atmosphere is more likely to evoke a sense of aura than viewing it through a photo album. “What if the methods of viewing the original and the copy were reversed?” If the original were viewed through a photo album and the copy in a museum, it becomes questionable whether the aura could still be felt from the original. In my personal opinion, the aura would likely not be felt even from the original. If that were the case, the claim that aura arises solely from the fact of being an original would be incorrect.
Thus far, I have countered Benjamin’s claim that originals possess an aura, making their value distinct from reproductions, through my subjective perspective. To do this, I analyzed the aura unique to the genuine, refuted the factors that generate aura (the originality of the genuine, its uniqueness, and the subjective character created by human subjectivity and experience), and ultimately considered the question: “Does the characteristic of being genuine truly evoke aura?” In conclusion, I too do not believe the value of the fake is superior to that of the real. However, I also do not believe the value of the real is unconditionally superior to that of the fake.
