I recently picked up a copy of Walter Benjamin’s Illuminations. I was completely struck by the first essay, “Unpacking My Library”, where Benjamin discusses book collecting. And while I myself take pride in my ever growing personal library, I almost immediately began to translate all his references to books as pertaining to record collecting. Not only this, but Benjamin’s words somehow summed up, far more eloquently than my own I might add, why, despite my professional stance that everything should be digitized and widely disseminated, I don’t and never will own an ipod. It made me rethink a few ideas I’ve become accustomed to, things like ownership and physicality, that have become essential to my work as a Digital Humanist. So, I thought I’d share…

Let me start by quoting part of Benjamin’s conclusion,

“…ownership is the most intimate relationship that one can have to objects”.

While this statement would possibly seem insignificant enough to your average person, “ownership” is an extremely weighted word for the Digital Humanist. Putting it simply, Digital Humanists hate ownership. Often, this disdain is directed towards corporations and their claims to proprietary software. This is easy enough, especially with the aggressive (unethical?) business practices of companies like Blackboard. The music industry, with its severely outdated business model, is another common target.  Many Digital Humanists go further though. They challenge their colleagues and institutions, especially universities and museums, to give up traditional rights to scholarship, educational content and primary sources.

However, we can think of ownership from another side. What about an individual’s ownership of something? Now, as I’m pretty sure not all Digital Humanists are total Communists (just kind of), I think most are comfortable with the idea of an individual owning possessions like a house, car, whatever. Its more intellectual property rights, especially of digitized intellectual property, that irk us. Because Digital Humanists have created this distinction, most of us can live in relative peace with the belief that its okay for us to own all sorts of things, but Microsoft needs to stop charging people for software. It works for me at least.

There are some cases, however, where this distinction begins to blur, and I think music is an excellent example. I’m not necessarily talking about the consumption of music here, but the collecting of music. Lets return to Benjamin’s idea of ownership. I’ll throw another quote at you because I genuinely like how he writes:

“Even though public collections may be less objectionable socially and more useful academically than private collections [as the Digital Humanist knows very well] … the phenomenon of collecting loses its meaning as it looses is personal owner”

Think about that for a second and let me pose a question: do you own the songs on your ipod? I mean, not legally, that all depends on how you acquired them. But, do you feel ownership of them? Is that Vampire Weekend (or whatever the kids are into these days) mp3 yours? Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t really feel like a song on a copied CD is mine, let alone an mp3 file. Even if some feel that they do in fact own their mp3 files, looking deeper into Benjamin’s essay, I think I can demonstrate why this definition of ownership is inadequate or at least very distinct from the ownership I am trying to describe. Let me explain.

The Thrill of the Hunt

I really miss hunting for records. Don’t get me wrong, I still go to the record store to look for things, but its just not the same when what I’m looking for could just as easily be bought online while I’m watching TV. Especially for the collector of underground music, the joy of finding something you’ve sought for literally years is pretty hard to describe. However, guess who describes it perfectly?

“I am not exaggerating when I say that to a true collector the acquisition of an old birth is its rebirth”

In explanation of this rather odd statement, Benjamin explains how, for the collector, the acquisition of an item quite literally fulfills that item’s destiny, which is of course, to become part of your collection. All of that item’s history, from its production, to its past owners, real or imagined, becomes an additional property of the item (think of it like invisible metadata that exists in the collector’s head). Honestly, it sounds dumb, but I have to admit that I’ve shared this extraordinary feeling. Putting all real probabilities aside, it truly seems like destiny when you uncover that record that you’ve been searching for, perhaps for years, in the used bin at some crappy record store you dragged your girlfriend to on vacation. Every crease on the album sleeve, every marking, all the writing, it all stays with you, forever becoming part of a collection that includes but is not limited to the music itself. Basically, it all adds up to much more than the music itself.

Physicality, Ownership and the Digital World

The point of all this nonsense, besides that record collecting is cool, is that while the digital world has not necessarily changed music itself, it has certainly qualitatively changed the collecting of music. Physicality is one aspect of this, as the physical marks on something like a used record can perhaps be used to conjure up a richer history of that item, which, as Benjamin suggests, adds to the many joyful histories contained within in a collection, inseparable but distinct from the music itself. However, I would argue that physicality, while perhaps the most obvious, is not the most important factor. For instance, back in the days of peer to peer file sharing, I certainly felt Benjamin’s “thrill of acquisition” when finding an album after countless unsuccessful searches. I believe the more essential element is that “ownership”, in the Benjamin sense, is directly dependent on a meaningful acquisition. One that produces “profound enchantment” and a literal sense of destiny.

Its interesting for myself, as a Digital Humanist, to consider that part of Benjamin’s “ownership” as defined in his quotation, cites public ownership in direct opposition to this personal ownership that makes collecting so desirable in the first place.  Its easy to see why this is so, if only because widespread availability would necessarily lesson the difficulties and joys of acquisition. Thus, some of my most cherished goals of dissemination and the eradication of the ownership of digital “property” also contribute to the deterioration of a different kind of “ownership”, that of an individual to that personal, intangible, yet very real aspect of his or her collection. In this case, its music. But perhaps the example can be applied elsewhere. When I reflect on all of this, I realize that receiving information of any kind, academic for instance, is not necessarily so different from listening to a record. Its certainly more than just memorization, critical thinking, or other mental processes normally associated with learning. In fact, my “collection” of academic knowledge has been dramatically enriched by everything else that took place while in school, at conferences, or in the archive. From the thrill of putting on those white gloves the first time I handled historic photographs to the memories of my music professor’s leather pants and rants about punk music (“Roots of Rock and Soul”, a legendary class). Of course, I’m not saying Digital Humanists should abandon our, in my view, very essential goals. Its just that, thinking of Walter Benjamin’s library and my record collection, I think its also important to remember the central importance of the process of acquisition, not simply the content acquired.

Yes, that’s true.  I even got a Master’s Degree.  Now, I like history and other humanities for lots of reasons, not just because they’re sometimes kind of metal, but I figured that with my first post on this site I’d return to my roots and original reasons for liking history.

Strangely enough, this post will sort of fit in thematically with some of my others that are in the works in that one of my goals for this site is to highlight artists that I find interesting, under appreciated or just plain awesome.  So, get ready for some awesome medieval and Renaissance artworks.

Also, just to be clear, by metal I mean like fucking metal man.  Like with guitars and stuff.  Got me?

Gustave Dore

Gustave Dore is really metal (he’s also from the 19th century, so, not medieval at all really.  still super metal though).  I can appreciate the intricacies of Gustave Dore‘s etchings on a purely artistic level.  However, I can appreciate them much more on a purely metal level.  I’d say his interpretation of Dante’s Divine Comedy is my favorite.  For instance, Dore’s depiction for Canto XXVII shows the “Sowers of Dischord”, poor damned souls that they are, ripping themselves apart as their innards spew out.

Even his work on the Bible is pretty metal.  This really brings the up the question, unanswered by many except for maybe Zao, as to why is it that the Bible and Christian imagery in general is so metal?

I guess my first answer would be that both share a strange preoccupation with the Devil.  In fact, looking at Dore’s work on the Divine Comedy its interesting to note that the majority of his etchings deal with the Inferno, as opposed to Purgatory or Paradise.  I think this has much to do with the fact that hell, being what it is, would be the easiest to represent visually.  Theologically speaking (if I were a medieval Catholic, or I guess the 19th century Dore too), evil/hell/satan could all be represented visually because evil/hell/satan were all tied to a notion of physicality, just like the human body (which was also treated with mistrust).  The mind or spirit (like Paradise or God), on the other hand, were more ephemeral and, specifically, they were decidedly non-physical.  This is all due to some big theological debates that led to a body/spirit = evil/good stance by the Catholic church.  In any event, this theology would make it easier to picture or create an image of a monstrous horned demon than something of the “divine realm”.  Before I get on some crazy tangent about dualism (boy could tell you some tales about the Cathar heresy) or even iconography, lets see what all this has to do with metal.

First off, I honestly have no real idea, but lets just muse for a second.  I guess I’d say that metal, being really serious rock music, is concerned, as all great rock n roll is, with the human body and all of its more natural yet frowned upon needs and wants.  By this I guess I mean drugs, sex, moving around a lot in an aggressive yet not necessarily coordinated manner, and loud noise.  Given this, metal’s choice of Christian imagery is actually a pretty appropriate way, in my opinion, to enter such a debate.  If satan=body, that makes him a pretty obvious rock n roll choice.  I mean, why attack the 70s, 80s or 90s establishment when you can attack the historical root- the ancient and medieval church.  I mean, they’re the one’s that started all this anti-body, anti-sex, anti-cheap fun riff raff to begin with right?

As a side note, isn’t it kind of weird that a society would set itself up where its easy to visualize pure evil, but pure good is, by definition, not visually accessible?  Just sayin’.

Hieronymus Bosch

Hieronymus Bosch (yes, I had to copy and paste his name) is probably the most metal of all medieval artists.  Yes, he is in fact from the medieval period, albeit kind of late.  Again, I’ll just flat out admit that I have no idea what his paintings are supposed to mean exactly.  You would really think he was on drugs, although I’m guessing that he actually wasn’t, being the good Catholic that he was.  But man, there’s all sorts of flying fishes, flowers coming out of people’s asses, a demon that’s literally shitting people into a hole.  Its very intense and very metal.

Bruegel the Elder

Pieter Bruegel the Elder, similar to Bosch in many ways, should also be mentioned here, although many of his most metal works are both very similar and of lesser quality than Bosch’s.  The Triumph of Death is an exception to the last statement.  I will also say that his depiction of the Tower of Babel (a copy hangs in my study) is quite epic, which is another aspect of metal.  Epicness (?) is really important to metal, as it was to people during the medieval period.  It’s important to lots of people though, but it seems to me the further back in time you go, the more epic the stories are.  Maybe that’s another reason for the Christian imagery.  I mean, depending on who you talk to, the Bible is and is not many things.  I would say, however, that few could deny that the Bible is quite epic.

Caravaggio

Caravaggio was also pretty metal, although he’s more Renaissance than medieval.  Also, a lot of his paintings aren’t that metal, to tell you the truth.  I’ll give him credit for the Medusa head (Greek mythology is also kind of metal), as well as the possibility that he murdered someone.  I don’t know, I’m not in love with the guy, but I’d feel bad leaving him off the list.

The Black Death

One of the most metal topics in medieval art was the Black Death, Bubonic Plague, the Plague (all great metal band names btw).  Its just a metal topic, I don’t know.  It’s so metal its even kind of hard to explain.  Hope you’ll enjoy a few examples.

The Point?

Obviously, there’s really no point to this article, I just thought it would be fun.  If anything, I hope to turn people on to some great artists, especially Dore, Bosch and Bruegel because while each is totally famous, sometimes I think that they don’t get enough exposure, especially to certain audiences.  Also, its an interesting historiographical framework.  I mean, we (historians) have imposed plenty of other subjectively constructed frameworks on the past (nation state, progress narrative, anything really- just read Hayden White, you’ll see what I mean), why not do something more fun.  If not metal, how about Radical History as in like surfer radical, not politically radical.  Think about it, it could be kind of postmodern or at the very least historical events would be connected only in the most nontraditional fashion.  For example:

1965- Snowboards are invented- way radical.

1993- Bill Clinton, who loved weed and saxophones became president- totally radical.

1994- My friend Doug ate 6 burritos in one sitting- most radical.

See what I mean?

I must also admit that this article had absolutely nothing to do with Digital anything, and for that I’m sorry.  I have no problem if anyone wants to make a mash-up of Gustave Dore’s artwork to metal music.  Maybe his interpretation of Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner with Iron Maiden’s Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner?   Just a thought.

Next time: I much more serious article on d.a.levy and new media.

Related Reading: Wikipedia: Dualism (sorry for all the wikipedia links by the way, i promise better research next time)