How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction?

(1)

HOW CAN ONE CREATE AN AURA

FROM A DIGITAL

REPRODUCTION?

Master Degree Project in Media, Aesthetics and

Narration A1E

One year Level XX ECTS

Spring term 2017

Moa Andersson

Supervisor: Lissa Holloway-Attaway

Examiner: Johan Almer

(2)

Abstract

How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction? According to researchers like Walter Benjamin (1936) this is not possible. However with todays technology and digital media it is worth looking into how it would be possible.

Museums are looking for ways to expand the experiences of their exhibitions with the help of digital media, but research into authenticity and aura in digital reproductions is limited. This research aims to answer if it is possible to create an aura from a digital reproduction and in what way that would be done.

(3)

9.2 Interviews ... - 37 - 9.2.1 Session 1 Participant 1 ... - 37 - 9.2.2 Session 1 Participant 2 ... - 38 - 9.2.3 Session 1 Participant 3 ... - 39 - 9.2.4 Session 1 Participant 4 ... - 40 - 9.2.5 Session 2 Participant 1 ... - 41 - 9.2.6 Session 2 Participant 2 ... - 43 - 9.2.7 Session 2 Participant 3 ... - 45 - 9.2.8 Session 2 Participant 4 ... - 47 - 9.2.9 Session 3 Participant 1 ... - 48 -

(4)

9.2.10 Session 3 Participant 2 ... - 50 -

(5)

1 Introduction

How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction?

The transition between the analog to the digital in today’s society is prevalent. The usage of digital media is ever increasing and is becoming increasingly common in our everyday lives. Even in our cultural activities we often encounter digital objects and experiences. Traditionally, we go to museums and visit cultural heritage sites in person, but what would happen if these experiences also were converted to digital media? What would happen with our perceptions of authenticity? Would we find that digital artifacts retain the sense of truth, the aura, of traditional material artifacts?

My research will delve into the transition between the analog and the digital. In 2005, the ruins of an old church were found next to the abbey in the small town of Varnhem, outside of Skara in Sweden. What was found was the remnants of one of Sweden’s first stone churches, and interest in the location spiked (see section 2.5). I will be creating digital representations of these ruins as they might have looked like when they were originally built. These digital representations will be tested to see if visitors/tourists associate them the authentic originals and if, then it they are able to convey an aura of “truth.”. This will be done through a series of interviews, both on location at the ruins where users will be shown a movie clip of the digital representation, as well as off location, where users will be shown the same clip. Participants in the experience will be recorded and studied, in combination with an interview.

(6)

2 Background

There are several different concepts to understand before one can create and test authentic cultural heritage experiences.

To create an authentic experience, I will base my research on different categories of authenticity, object-based, existential and staged authenticity, outlined further below in section 2.2. Theorists like MacCannell (1976) and Wang (1999) have concretized and categorized authenticity, specifically related to tourism studies. As my research specifically focused on museum sites and visitor’s perception, research drawn from tourism studies is essential.

Walter Benjamin’s concept of the aura is central to my research (1936). As my research revolves around authenticity and how one can create authentic experiences aura will have a central part in the results of this study. Applying Benjamin’s definition of the aura provides measurable outcomes, and it will be a basis from which I can measure the prototype to see if visitor’s perceive it as authentic. According to Benjamin himself a prototype such as this one, a digital reproduction would be completely unable to have an aura as it is not the original artefact. However scholars like MacCannell (1976) argue the exact opposite and claim that when a reproduction is created then this is when the aura is generated. (This is outlined further in section 2.3).

Other central terms for my research simulation and simulacra as referenced by Baudrillard in his book Simulation and Simulacra (1981). Baudrillard refers to simulacra as a simulation of something that does not, or no longer, exists. As the prototype to my research is a digital representation of how historians believe the churches looked, no one can be certain exactly how they did. In the prototype a high fidelity is always sought after but it is impossible to be 100 % correct. This is what makes the prototype a simulacrum.

2.1 Cultural heritage

Heritage stems from the French concept of patrimoine translated to heritage. From the 1790 when the term started being used it had symbolised the ceremony of handing down items and belongings from parents to children. (Vecco 2010). This later evolved into patrimoine culturel, or cultural heritage, which now involved the arts and national heritages as well.

According to UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) the term encompasses several categories.

• Tangible cultural heritage

• Movable cultural heritage (paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts) • Immovable cultural heritage (monuments, archaeological sites, etc) • Underwater cultural heritage (shipwrecks, underwater ruints and citites) • Intangible cultural heritage (oral traditions, performing arts, rituals) (UNESCO, n.d.)

UNESCO is an organisation whose purpose is, per them, “…to contribute to the building of

peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information.” (UNSESCO, n.d.)

Most famously known for their World Heritage List, UNESCO lists natural, cultural or mixed locations of the world that are to be legally protected through international treaties.

(7)

My research takes place in the Immovable cultural heritage and its transition into the digital media. Immovable cultural heritage refers to a location or a specific monument/archaeological piece. In the case of this research the ruins of Varnhem is a good example of Immovable cultural heritage. A more famous example of this is the Machu Picchu in Peru or the Tower of London in England.

2.2 Authenticity

In tourism studies authenticity has held a central part in experiences related to historical events and locations. Researchers like Rickly-Boyd (2012), Wang (1999) and MacCannell (1976) have summarized and concretized the different kinds of authenticity and collectively they provide several key definitions relevant to my research: objective authenticity, existential

authenticity, constructed authenticity and staged authenticity.

Wang (1999) points out that there are two separate issues within authenticity studies that are often confused as one. A tourist’s experience and toured objects. While my research focuses upon both of these, the experience is what I am most interested in, as it is the visitor’s perception of the whole experience that I aim to test for authenticity.

Below I will detail three different concepts of authenticity from Wang (1999) and MacCannell (1976): Objective, existential and staged authenticity.

2.2.1 Object based authenticity

Objective authenticity refers to the authenticity of originals. Correspondingly, authentic experiences in tourism are equated to an epistemological experience (i.e., cognition) of the authenticity of originals.

Wang (1999)

Object based authenticity is closely related to Benjamin’s definition of aura, outline below. Object based authenticity focuses on the genuineness of objects, artifact and structures. For example the ruins featured in my prototype would be object-based authenticity as they are without a doubt historically accurate in that they are meant to represent the actual history of the site. Visitors whose aim is to experience the ruins themselves will experience object-based authenticity.

As with Benjamin’s aura, object based authenticity cannot be experienced in reproductions as its “genuineness” is lost. It is the originality of an object, structure or location that determines the experience of object based authenticity.

Boorstin (1961) call tourism a pseudo-event where tourist seek inauthenticity in response to their inauthentic lives. He believed that tourists replace the authenticity with their own provincial expectations. In relation to this, object based authenticity would be the authentic experience in which a visitors experience is replaced by pseudo-event where they exchange the experience with their own provincial affordances. MacCannell (1976) countered this with his belief that visitors seek authenticity in response to their alienation to modernity. He believed that there is a connection between the visitors expected authenticity and the actual authenticity of the location. They can be two different things and what the visitor experience may not be completely authentic but it is perceived that way. This is where objective

(8)

2.2.2 Existential authenticity

“…existential authenticity, unlike object-related version, can often have nothing to do with the issue of whether toured objects are real. In search of tourist experience which is existentially authentic, tourists are preoccupied with an existential state of Being activated by certain tourist activities.”

Wang (1999)

Existential authenticity relates to a state of being, that is with a feeling or perception of authenticity within the tourist themselves. A more philosophical version than previously mentioned objective authenticity, existential authenticity relates to being true to oneself. (Wang 1999).

According to Heidegger’s Being and Time (1962, Chapter 1) the concept of “being” is related to authenticity. He explains that the essence of human being (or Dasein

)

lies in existence. And he divides these into inauthentic and authentic existence. He means that human beings can use their existence as their own authentic way or in something that is not their own, which then becomes inauthentic. In relation to tourism studies it is Heidegger’s definition of “being” that can be tied to existential authenticity.

Wang (1999) separates existential authenticity into two different categories. Inter-personal and intra-personal. Intra-personal authenticity relates to ones own bodily feelings and self making. Examples of this could be relaxation, rehabilitation, recreation, adventure. This might be to go off the “beaten track” and to do something out of the ordinary, away from the monotony of everyday life.

Inter-personal authenticity relates to ones own family ties and communities. Examples of this could be travelling as a family, together for holidays. Touristic communitas relates to liminality which, just like with self making, refers to something out of the ordinary. Something apart from everyday life, such as holidays, travelling together etc.

2.2.3 Staged Authenticity

“In highly developed tourist settings, such as San Francisco and Switzerland, every detail of touristic experience can take on a showy, back-region aspect, at last for fleeting moments. Tourists enter tourist areas precisely because their experiences there will not, for them, be routine [...]

And once tourists have entered touristic space, there is no way out for them so long as they press their search for authenticity. Near each tourist setting there are others like the last. Each one may be visited, and each one promises real and convincing shows of local life and culture.”

MacCannell (1973) P 601.

Staged authenticity is a concept that even for its creator has been equated with something negative. It is when something is that is not authentic is viewed as authentic by tourists. Arguably my research is strongly tied to staged authenticity as complete authenticity and historical fidelity is impossible to achieve with the information that we have. However tourists will view it as authentic, creating the “staged” authenticity.

MacCannell coined the expression of staged authenticity and used it in relation to something that is “fake”. MacCannell argues that it is in the quest of object based authenticity that tourists falls victim to the “staged authenticity”.

(9)

Just like with Boorstin’s pseudo-events MacCannell’s staged authenticity refers directly to museums and object based authenticity. This refers to a touristic experience being epistemological based, rather than experiential. However, most touristic experiences are more completed than this; very few are completely black and white. According to Wang (1999) authenticity is a wide spectrum. What academics and historians might view as inauthentic might be viewed as authentic by tourists, such as Medeltidsveckan, or the “Medievil week”, on Gotland. Historians knows very little about how people lived during the middle ages, but the event claims to be authentic and is perceived that way by visitors. Aronsson and Larsson (2002).

2.3 Aura

“Lying back on a summer’s afternoon, gazing at a mountain range on the horizon or watching a branch as it casts its shadow over our reclining limbs, we speak of breathing in the aura of those mountains or that branch.”

-Benjamin, W (1936) P 9.

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936) by Walter Benjamin details

his notion of aura and mechanical reproduction and his disapproval with the use of reproduction in relation to authenticity and aura. Benjamin believed that the art of mechanical reproduction not only lessened the aura of the actual object, but the replica produced will be completely void of any aura from the artifact itself.

Benjamin believed that the authenticity of an object is tied to ritual and tradition. From the authenticity of the artefact, an aura is born. He argues that the aura is tied to the experience, the engagement with the artifact and its authenticity.

Interestingly, MacCannell (1976) argued that Benjamin inverted the ideas of aura and authenticity.

‘‘He should have reversed his terms. The work becomes “authentic” only after the first copy

of it is produced. The reproductions are the aura, and the ritual, far from being a point of

origin, derives from the relationship between the original object and its socially constructed

importance.”

(MacCannell 1976) P 4.

What MacCannell means is that the reproduction is the aura, whereas Benjamin argues the exact opposite: that is that a work loses its aura as soon as the first reproduction is made. Many games today incorporate historical places and artefacts to appear more “tied” to modern society. To help players become more “immersed” in the game. An example of a series who have taken this to the extreme is the Assassin’s Creed games (2007-present). The latest installment in the series, as of 2016, is Assassin’s Creed Syndicate. The game takes place in the 17th_{century London during the industrial revolution. Img 1 is a screen capture from the game} and illustrates one of the many streets of London.

(10)

Img 1 ”Assassins Creed Syndicate”

When the player walks around in the game, they are meant to experience similar feelings that the people who lived during this time did. They can have similar affordances to places in the game based on what they have experienced with the main character. People living in London are able to recognize places and areas throughout the game world, enhancing the aura. This is technically a mechanical reproduction, which according to Benjamin would be completely void of any kind of aura. Although the aura might be different, it is still prevalent in the game.

2.4 Simulation and Simulacra

To discuss simulation and simulacra one must also understand the concept of “hyperreality” that Jean Baudrillard (1981) references in his work Simulacra and Simulation.

“Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.”

- Baudrillard, J. (1981 p1.)

Baudrillard writes at length about various descriptions of the second world war and how the media chose to depict it. He argues that the hyperreality is not the reality of the war, but the world that the media had created depicting the war. Similarily, Henry Jenkins (2006) speaks of convergence culture in his book of the same name. In one of the chapters, aptly named “Spoiling Survivor: The Anatomy of a Knowledge Community”, Jenkins describes the internet community of fans of the specific TV show Survivor, and his description is connected to Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality. It is a group of people from different corners of the world creating a world within the internet to be able to, as Jenkins described, “spoil” Survivor. It is also a good example of convergence culture and multiplatform media, as it stretches beyond just the internet but also utilizes real world assets, such as users geographical position, to solve the riddle of the future of the show. The “hyperreality” in this, being the socially constructed groups on the internet using their constructed theories to tie into real world experiences in their effort to “spoil” Survivor. Thus creating a fictional version of how they believe the show will end. Possibly wrong, and possibly right, they will not know until the show is aired and that “truth” that they have created described a “hyperreality”.

(11)

Baudrillard (1981) begins his book with a quote from Ecclesiastes:” The simulacrum is never what hides the truth – it is truth that hides the fact that there is none. The simulacrum is true.”

This interesting quote hints at Baudrillard’s own ideas of hyperreality and simulation. He describes vividly hyperreality and the simulacrum of the information spread by the media. In the “The Gulf War will not take place” in a French newspaper called Liberation (1991), Baudrillard also writes about the budding war at the time. During the same year, he published two more essays with the same topic in the magazine, “The Gulf War is not really taking place” and “The Gulf War did not take place”. In these three essays Baudrillard does not deny that there is an actual war, taking place in the Gulf, contrary to the titles of the essays. However, he claims that in essence, media’s representation of the war is a form of simulacra. He argues that the media presented a different image of the war than in reality, specifically in relation to the actual “fighting”. He refers to the fact that there were very little man versus man combat but instead America relied on airpower, thusly suffering little casualties. The hyperreality created by the media of the horrific war with hundreds and thousands of casualties is a simulacrum. A reality that has no substance or truth anchored in the “real world”. This would entail that a simulacrum is something forged, or “fake”.

A more straightforward, as well as relevant for my project, example of simulacra is the statue that stands in Gothenburg, Sweden and is called “Poseidon” by Carl Milles (1931). As Poseidon is, as far as we know, a fictional character this statue is in essence a representation or simulation of something that does not exists, thus it is a simulacrum.

Img 2 “Poseidon by Carl Milles (1931)”

In conclusion:

Simulation: The representation or “simulation” of something that exists, something real. Simulacra: The representation or “simulation” of something that does not exist, or no longer exists.

2.5 The history of the ruins of Varnhem

Varnhem is a smaller village location outside of Skara in Västergötalands län in Sweden. It houses the abbey that was built around 1100. During the 1920’s excavations around the abbey something was found on the small hill just above it. However due to time restraints and budget the finds were not excavated any further and the ruins location just below the ground had to wait almost a hundred years before they saw the surface again. In 2005 the small hill was finally properly excavated by archaeologists and what was found was something that no one was expecting. Ruins dating back as far as to the 900’s was identified as a church. This might not have been such a big deal if one did not take into consideration that this was during the Viking age in Sweden. Swedes were not Christian in this area during this time. Or at least so it

(12)

was believed. However the finds in the ruins and around it pointed irrefutably to the early turn of the century 950-1000.

What was found was the remnants of two chuches. The first was a smaller wooden church, believed to have existed around the 950’s. It was then replaced by a bigger stone church around 1050. The church was commissioned by the owners of the private farm located there at the time, Kättil and Kata. Interestingly both of their bodies were found to be rather intact buried right next to the ruins. Especially Kata who was in a finer grave with a beturifully crafted lid which had runes chiselled into it. “Kättil gjorde denna sten efter Kata sin hustru Torgils syster”. Or ”Kättil made this stone after Kata his wife Torgils sister.” This proves that the skeleton inside was indeed Kata and papers from the time also confirmed that she was the owner of the farm during the time the stone church was commissioned.

This was the early 1000’s however and the art of building in stone had not yet been established in Sweden. This meant that contractors from England was hired to come and build the church, which suggests good relations between the two countries.

As only ruins remains of the churches it is impossible to know exactly how they looked like. However, archeologists are able to make guesses based on existing churches and based on the finds on the location they are able to paint a rather authentic picture of what it looked like. Naturally they cannot be 100 % sure, which is were this research comes in.

(13)

3 Problem

According to Benjamin (1936) a reproduction cannot have an aura. Only the original artefact can have an aura. This would mean that a simulacra can never have an aura. If an aura cannot be perceived it is hard to deem the experience authentic. Herein lies the problem. The prototype for my research is a digital representation (a simulacrum) of a pre-existing artefact (the ruins). It is impossible to create a completely authentic digital representation as no one knows exactly what the ruins looked like when they were whole. According to Benjamin it would not then be possible for them to have an aura, or air of truth or authenticity, since complete object-based authenticity is impossible to achieve in digital form.

In my research I will look into how one can construct authentic experiences using digital media by reconstructing a form of aura that extends to the context in which the museum visitor is located. My hypothesis is that the location of the experience is the key to maximising the effect. For example I believe that the aura will be more potent if the participants are on location by the ruins rather than if they participate in the experience on a different location. This is relevant to the theme of object-based authenticity, and if one can enhance the connection between the ruins and the prototype (see section 5) my hypothesis is that the aura will be stronger.

Regardless of the location of the experience the fact remains that the prototype will have some elements of staged authenticity. Viewed mostly in a negative light, my research will take advantage of the stronger sides of staged authenticity. The ruins will be staged in as authentic a way as possible, but it will be staged only to a certain degree. This however is countered by the fact that the ruins themselves are completely authentic, and everything included in my design is done in relation to them.

Today’s society is becoming increasingly digital and research surrounding this transition in relation to cultural heritage and authenticity is important. It could be beneficial for researchers to see if there is a possibility of creating an aura from a digital reproduction since it is possible that this could benefit patrons’ experience with the artefact.

This leads to the primary question upon which I base my research: How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction?

3.1 Method

To be able to understand how one can construct authentic cultural heritage experiences I aim to test my prototype at two different locations.

There will be four different groups of testers. Two of the groups will view the artefact on location at the ruins in Varnhem, and two of the groups will view the artefact on another neutral location. Neutral here refers to a location that has no apparent connection with the ruins in question. This to separate the experience of the digital reproduction from the original. The first group testing on location by the ruins will be given a tour and a short presentation by a historian that will tell them about the ruins and about the history of the place. This to set the scene, as well as to create a feeling of authenticity by using a person presumed to have authority and knowledge of the subject-matter, to provide a context for visitors by telling them about the place and its history.

(14)

The second group that will view the artefact on location will not be given a presentation by the authority figure. Then I will test to see if there is any difference in their perception of the experience, particularly regarding it’s authenticity and connection to the locations referenced. The third group will test at a neutral location, one with no ties to the ruins in Varnhem or to any other type of cultural heritage. They will receive the exact same presentation as the first group by the same person of authority, following the viewing of the artefact.

The fourth and final group will test on the same location as the third one, however without the presentation. Excluding the presentation the test will be conducted in an identical way as the previous group. Excluding the presentation will aim to test if there is any difference removing the person of authority in the experience of the users. Will they view the experience as less authentic when not being prefaced by a presentation?

Following each of the tests an interview will be conducted and the participants will take part in a short survey to see how they perceived the experience. (See section 3.1.1)

I aim to see if there is any difference in the perception of the experience between the different locations. If so it will confirm my theory that the ruins, ergo the object-based authenticity, will create a stronger sense of aura. Each group will consist of approximately 5 participants. In relation to focus groups Alan Bryman (2016) advises in his book Social Research Methods that the size of the group should be between six to ten members. Considering that the method utilized in this project is considered qualitative rather than pure focus groups, the goal will be to have about 4-5 members in each group.

The entirety of the experience will be recorded so that it will be possible to study the participant’s reaction with the location and with the prototype itself.

3.1.1 Interview

The interview will contain an individual session where I will take the participants one on one and conduct an interview. Considering the time it will take to interview all of them, I will keep the interviews very short. They will answer a few questions and then get to pick between the words detailed below.

The model that is detailed below is loosely based on Lemay & Maheux-Lessard’s (2010) Semantic Differential Model where they took two “extreme” emotions and put them on either side of a spectrum where participants could choose a number closest to the feeling that best symbolized their experience.

(15)

Img 3 Semantic differential question sheet by P.Lemay and M.Maheux-Lessard (2010) p96.

In this study the testing will be conducted similarly, but not identically.

I will sit the participant down and present them with 20 different words: 10 of which will describe aura with Benjamin’s (1936) own words, and 10 of which will be the opposite of these words. Uniqueness Ordinariness Connectedness Detachment History Contemporary Location Elsewhere Authenticity Falseness Presence Absence Original Reproduction Community/Inclusion Separation/Exclusion Tradition New Ritual Mundane

(16)

The green words are from Walter Benjamin (1936) and the yellow marked ones are from Ning Wang (1999) in their work Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience in relation to Benjamin’s notion of aura.

Participants will be given all these words in a different order and mixed so that they are not able to directly see which one of the words are antonyms of each other. They will be asked to choose 10 words out of 20 to describe the experience they had at the ruins with the prototype/video.

The rest of the interview excluding the words portrayed above will be traditionally performed, in line with Bryman’s (2016) writings. It will be semi-structured with a few questions detailing interests of the participants and their background in the theme of the study. It will be recorded and transcribed, see Appendix.

The main feature of the interview will be centred around choosing the words and their discussion about the words that they picked. Hence the choice of having semi-structured interview as it gives the possibility for follow up questions regarding their discussions. The prepared questions of the interview are as follows:

What are your initial thoughts upon seeing this video?

(If they were introduced with the lecture) Did you connect the video and the lecture? Do you see a connection between the ruins in Varnhem and this video?

What do you think about using a digital medium to reflect history and culture?

Do you think that a digital representation can give the same “feeling” as being by the original artefact?

Do you think it is possible to get a “feeling” about the location just through watching this kind of video?

Do you have any thoughts about the experience?

3.1.2 Design

The prototype, outlined in section 4, is design iteratively in close collaboration with the client, Västergötlands museum. The Prototype itself will be an animated sequence showing the different stages of construction the ruins have gone through over the course of history. During the design of the sequence drawings and concept sketches have been made by the museum curator to illustrate exactly how they wish the churches to look like. The client wants two different iterations of the church: The first being a wooden church that was believed to be on the location before the stone church, which has left the visible ruins; The second being the stone church itself. The sequence is designed to show the different parts of the churches and how they are constructed, meaning that the actual construction of the digital models have to have a high historical fidelity.

(17)

(18)

4 The Prototype

The prototype in it’s entirety consists of a video, around 2 minutes long. It features two different buildings from two different time periods of the location previously mentioned as Varnhem, just outside of Skara, Sweden.

The video starts of with a so-called establishing shot. A view from where the scene is set and viewers are given a setting to where the video will take place.

Img 4 “Grass hills” Moa Andersson (2017)

The video then goes through to the top of the hill seen in Img 4, where the first building is built up step by step.

The buildings, or churches, as they were, constructed in conjunction with strict measurements from the ruins on location and drawings made by the museum. (See img 2 and 3. ) This means that they hold a high historical fidelity which is important for this study as it is possible that they are perceived as authentic.

The second church is seen in more detail as it is the church that has left ruins behind that are still visible today. Viewers will travel into the church and even into the crypt below that is the most preserved structure in the ruins.

The video ends at the same place that it started to ensure that it is loop-able since the end goal is for it to play at the exhibition by the ruins themselves.

(19)

(20)

5 Pilot study – testing the evaluation method

The pilot study’s goal is to test the evaluation method to see if it is able to somehow measure such an illusive concept as an aura, according to Benjamin’s definition (1936). Because of time restrictions, the pilot is conducted over the internet, where participants only get to view an early draft of the prototype, as the final product is not finished at the time of the testing. They will then be given the 20 words described in section 3.1.1 and will be choosing 10 of these to describe the video they just saw.

A detailed interview will not be conducted in this pilot study as the goal is to evaluate if the method previously outlined is suitable for this type of testing. The goal is not to truly test the research question but merely evaluate the means to be able to do so.

There are four different participants in this study: Three males and one female with a similar familiarity with Swedish history and 3D art. The interview is conducted and recorded over Discord, a chat program on the computer that allows for long distance calls.

Pilot study results

The pre-study shows that the method in itself works. It also brought to light a few interesting key points: 100 % of testers chose both “authenticity” and “history” todescribe the experience, and three out of four chose “reproduction.” This is interesting since Walter Benjamin (1936) identifies reproduction as the main enemy of aura. He claims that a reproduction can have no aura since it lacks objective authenticity. However the testers of the pilot identified authenticity and history as well as reproduction. This indicates that they must have experienced some sort of authenticity in the experience. Herein lies a problem however. As previously described authenticity can be divided into several different categories. Object based-, existential- and staged- authenticity (Wang 1999, MacCannell 1976). It would be interesting to find out what type of authenticity the participants perceived, but that might be very hard to identify. Arguably one would assume that they would fall into the category of existential or staged authenticity rather than object based. As the video lacks any real objective

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

(21)

authenticity (Wang 1999) it would then be reasonable to assume that their experience of authenticity, as the result of the pilot shows that they did, would fall into the category of either existential or staged. My belief is that as the experience is staged as authentic their perception would be that of a staged authenticity. They perceive the experience as 100 % authentic even though it might not be. As full authenticity is impossible when only ruins remains of the actual buildings it is impossible to have a complete historic fidelity.

This would also be interesting since Benjamin’s (1936) description of authenticity falls under the category of object based authenticity (Wang 1999). The pilot shows that the words related to aura dominated the study. All of the participants chose more words related to aura than words not related to aura. This would mean that they did feel some sort of affect of the video that could be described as an aura. It will be interesting to see if this will be effected, negatively or positively, by watching the video on location or off location. As the main focus of this study is to see if there is a difference in the perception of aura if the object is present whilst watching a reproduction the result of the pilot is not completely viable. It was also done over the internet as the goal was not to test the aura, but to test the method. However it is very interesting to see that an aura can be perceived through such a crude version of the finished product. It presents high hopes for the future finished prototype and the future tests.

My theory is that the location will enhance the aura as it ties into the object based authenticity, but the initial thought from this pilot was shock as I did not believe that such a high number would be produced just from the video alone. The video presents a staged authenticity that presumably did convince testers that the work was authentic. I do believe that this would be even more apparent if one would watch the video right next to the ruins themselves. You would then see the actual outline of the buildings and be able to compare it to the buildings in the video, hopefully realizing that they are indeed the same structures. My belief is that this would increase the feeling of authenticity and tie the reproduction, which according to Benjamin (1936) would be devoid of any aura, to the actual object, which according to Benjamin (1936) would have an aura.

Another interesting point was the words that were not used by any of the participants. Falseness, new and mundane. Their counterparts however were used by 50 % and more of the testers, authenticity, tradition and ritual. Particularly when looking at authenticity vs falseness 100% of users picked authenticity and 0% picked falseness. A clear indicator that they all perceived some sort of authenticity which would lead one to believe that the perceived an aura. The result of this pilot study shows that the method is suitable for the main part of this research.

(22)

6 The study

The complete testing consists of four different sessions. Two sessions on location in Varnhem at the ruins to tie into the object based authenticity (Rickly-Boyd (2012) Wang (1999)), and two sessions away from the location to see if the video can replace this authenticity and to measure how the aura will differ with different variables. One session on location and one session off location with feature a short lecture to give a context to the video, again to tie in to the location and the authenticity of its history. This would theoretically make the video seem more authentic and would hence give a stronger aura, (Benjamin 1936).

6.1 Session One – off location, without lecture

Session one was conducted with four participants in their home. The participants were of different ages with similar background and interest in history. Two males and two females. The four participants viewed the video in silence, with no context what so ever about what they were watching or any background history of the location of any kind.

After viewing the video the were each given a sheet containing the 20 different words (detailed above in section 3.1.1) and were told to pick 10 that best described their experience with the video. Upon completion they were each taken aside to ask a few questions in a premade semi structured interview that was recorded.

The answers to the question were not surprising. The hypothesis of this leg of the testing were that the participants would experience the least amount of aura in comparison with the remaining three sessions. Two of the participants were adamant that it was not possible to get the same question from a digital reproduction as being by the original artefact, and two were unsure. One of the participants answered: “Well, not the same feeling. But one could so to say recreate the feeling still. Somehow…” (appendix p. 39 session 1, participant 4)

The results of the words are tallied below.

Session one – off location, without lecture words results

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

(23)

Session one – off location, without lecture words percentages

Although the words not related to aura was shown to an extent it was the words related to aura that showed in a higher quantity. In contrast with the pilot study the word authenticity was not highly represented. Only one of the participants chose the word, while two of the participants chose reproduction. None of the words were mentioned before or during the test to ensure not to affect the testers in any way when they chose their words.

6.2 Session Two – off location, with lecture

Session two was conducted identically to session one with the exception that a short lecture was added before showing the video. The lecture was pre-recorded and told of the history of the location and the connection between the video and the ruins on location. After seeing the lecture the participants, two males and two females of different ages, were shown the video. They were silent through the watching, with one or two gasps of recognition in between. Upon completion of the two minute long video they were given the 20 words and told to pick 10 of them. One after the other was taken aside and asked the same questions as the previous group, and these interviews were recorded.

The two younger participants, one male and one female, asked a few questions and referred to the technology of the video, during the interview. Both replied more in favour to the technology, rather than the history of the artefact, and reflected upon what type of changes one could made in the technology to better immerse viewers. This in contrast with the two older participants who answered purely in relation to the history and the effigy of the churches. The result of the words were in conjunction with the first session, with a few differences.

62% 38%

(24)

Session two – off location, with lecture words results

Session two – off location, with lecture words percentages

The presence of the words related to aura is staggering above the words not related to aura. The difference to the previous session is a whopping 10 % in favor to aura. Adding a background and an authentic lecture to the experience seems to have added to the aura.

6.3 Session Three – on location, with lecture

Session three was the first of the four groups that were conducted on location. The participants arrived at the ruins together, and got to see the exhibition together. They were given a tour and an identical amount of information as group two, as to ensure that the circumstances were as similar as possible aside from the location variable.

The group was interested and excited during the tour, asked questions which were answered if relevant to the information provided to the previous group. Upon completing the tour around the ruins, where a physical model of the churches as they may have looked like (identical to the digital representations in the video) were also displayed, the participants

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Words related to aura Words not related to aura

72% 28%

(25)

viewed the video together. They were told not to reflect openly and to, upon completion of the video, pick the words individually.

The results are detailed below.

Session three – on location, with lecture words results

Session three – on location, with lecture words percentages

The words chosen were distinctly in favor to aura, with the highest representation so far. The words chosen from the words not related to aura were contemporary, reproduction, new and mundane. Some of which can be attributed to the technology and its properties rather than the experience itself.

The interviews reflected the results of the words as the participants were positive towards the inclusion of digital media in cultural heritage. One participants answered: “Yes it shows that it can actually eh almost… go straight into your heart.” (appendix p. 51 session 3, participant 3) When asked if they had anticipated that before watching the video they replied with a firm no. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

80% 20%

(26)

6.4 Session Four – on location, without lecture

Session four had to unfortunately be slightly different that the other three. Two of the participants did not show up for the test, so only two of the four planned participated. This means that the data collected from this session is not as strong as the other three and the group will therefore be treated more as a control group.

This session also posed a difficulty in that the participants were supposed to be given as little background as possible, to mirror the first session. However surrounding the ruins there is an exhibition with text and information about the history. Because of this the participants were instructed to not read any of the text, but to only view the ruins and take in the atmosphere. Having completed this task they viewed the video and picked their words.

Session four – on location, without lecture words results

Session four – on location, without lecture words percentages

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

75% 25%

(27)

As there were fewer participants in this group in comparison to the others the data collected in this session is not as strong as the others and can because of this not be compared to the same degree with the other sessions. However the data points to a lesser degree of aura than the previous session with the lecture included. This mirrors the results from session one and two, but the variable of the location appear to have strengthened the aura somewhat.

(28)

7 Analysis

The results of this study is quite exactly in conjunction with the hypothesis. I believed that adding the variable of the location to the experience would add to the aura, and even more so when providing a historical background. It relates to the concept of authenticity, (Wang 1999, Rickly-Boyd 2012, MacCannell 1976). Object based authenticity, as Benjamin (1936) described to be the only type of authenticity that could create an aura, is in this case the ruins themselves. They are the artifact, and the video is a simulacrum (Baudrillard 1981) of them. A simulacrum is, as previously mentioned, a simulation of something that does not, or no longer, exists. It is impossible to know exactly what the ruins looked like when they were buildings as there are no photographs, and no one alive who saw them in their prime. One can make an educated guess and it is very likely that the result of the digital representation is very similar to the buildings that were there, but we will never know if this is true. Because of this the video in itself cannot have an object based authenticity. This means that according to Benjamin (1936) it would technically not be able to have an aura. However I believe that the authenticity in this video is related to staged authenticity, (Wang 1999, Rickly-Boyd 2012, MacCannell 1976). Staged authenticity, as previously mentioned in section 2.2.3, is something that appears to be authentic, even though it might not for whatever reason be. It is this type of authenticity that viewers of this digital representation is experiencing. They perceive the buildings to be authentic, and are therefore able to get an aura from them. Adding the possibility to view the ruins, the object based authenticity, along with the video, the staged authenticity, would logically prove to enhance the notion that the video is authentic and therefore produce a higher aura.

The results of this study support this. Session three showed the highest percentage of aura, with 80% and session one showed the least percentage of aura, 62%.

Session 1 – Off location, without lecture Session 3 – On location, with lecture

These were also the sessions with the biggest amount of differences in between them. Session one had no background, no history, just the video with no context. Session three had not only the video, but also the location itself, the object based authenticity in the ruins, and the heightened sense of staged authenticity in the lecture tying everything together.

The decision to include varying ages in the groups was interesting as it did show some indication of the prioritizing among the ages. For example in session two, when asking if they had anything to add about the experience the younger participants referenced how exciting it was to see the technology and that they were impressed with it. The older participants were far more impressed with the buildings and the history itself, rather than the means of showing them.

62% 38%

80% 20%

(29)

Younger male: ”No, not really… think it was good… since I know how long it takes to do these things I think it was a good job.” (Appendix p. 41 Session 3 Participant 1)

Older male: ”No, it was interesting? Always fun to… how it was a long long long time ago and… one thinks of what they could… how they could do things.” (Appendix p. 46 Session 3 participants 4)

Here the contrasts becomes apparent where the younger male talks about the actual technology whereas the older male talks about the construction of the buildings and the history of the message of the video.

This theme did shine through in the other sessions to a varying degree. The third session featured two younger participants and two older ones. The younger reflected on the use of a digital medium in a historic session and how that could benefit learning and the feeling of authenticity. “It’s a very god way to be able in an easier way show how it looked like, how it could build up and things like that. Good medium that could be used for more things in the future.” (Appendix p. 49 Session 3 Participant 2) Whereas the two older participants were surprised, bordering on shocked to see such a medium being effective in this settings. “…And then when you come in and look at lots of stones, then it wouldn’t be… when someone has worked with how that actually looked. Then you put the rocks in that context, and then it get’s bigger.” (Appendix p. 51 Session 3 Participant 3) Note here how the older participant reference to the history, and how the technology is being used to enhance the history, whereas the younger participant merely reference the digital medium.

Another important thing to note about this video, and something that could have potentially affected the aura it the fact that it is in some ways narratively driven. It starts of with an empty hill, it then builds up the first church piece by piece, deconstructs that and makes way for the bigger church. The camera then goes inside the church to show the inside, down into the crypt and then up to the ceiling to show the construction. It would have been interesting to see if there was any difference to the perception of aura if removing the animation and just having the churches as still images. See section 8.3 for more ideas about this.

If one were to look at the most frequent words picked by participants the winning words by far are history and location. Both unsurprising considering that the video is portraying history and a location.

The words

Number of times mentioned

History/ Location 14

Connectedness/ Tradition 11

Uniqueness/Original 10

(30)

Authenticity 8

Going down the list though, things get more interesting. Authenticity, being the strongest word tied to aura is “only” mentioned 8 times during all of the tests. This in comparison to reproduction which was mentioned 9 times. However to put it in perspective the max number of times the words could be picked would be 14. So 8/14 is still over 60 % of the times. The results do show that the impact of the testers was bigger when they were on site, rather than off site. Although not surprising it is interesting so see the response that they had. When looking at the responses of the participants, with the mindset of comparing the on/off location aspect, the first thing I noticed was that generally speaking the ones who where on site had more to say. Many of them made more correlations to their own interest and seemed more engaged in general.

For example when asked if they believe it to be possible to receive a “feeling” about the location through only watching a video a participant on the location answered:

“No, I would not have”… “And I view mostly the construction, you know. You know, people around… it might not be so interesting.” (Appendix p. 53 Session 3 Participant 4) Note here that they immediately referred to their own interest and made the correlation between themselves and other viewers. In contrast a participant who were not on the location, when asked the same question, answered:

“If it is very well done then one could probably get a could view into it. But it is probably not comparable with reality.” (Appendix p. 37 Session 1 Participant 2) They do not stray from the question, nor do they make any correlations or connections with anything else other than the question asked. This pattern is repeated mostly throughout the first two sessions, whereas during session two and three when they were on location participants became more engaged and more likely to answer more elaborately. It could of course be due to differences in personalities, but it is slightly too consistent to be disregarded completely.

The results speak for themselves when looking at what session created the biggest aura. However, it is hard to know what component of that session is that enhanced the aura the most. Is it the location? The video? The lecture? What I can say is that the video, in itself without any background (session one) resulted in 62 % aura. The video in combination with a lecture (session 2) resulted in 72 % aura. The video in combination with the location (session four) resulted in 75 % aura, although not as reliable data because of lesser participants. And finally the video in combination with the location and a lecture (session three) resulted in 80 % aura. Here it is apparent that the video in itself resulted 62 %. But it is hard to say what

exactly led to 80 % in the third session. Yes, the object based authenticity, in the ruins, made

the aura more potent but by how much? And yes the lecture enhanced the feeling of authenticity when putting the ruins and the video in a historical context. But which one of these gives the most? It is very likely that they effect each other, but in what way and by how much? It is hard to say without further testing. But one way to find out would be to see how much aura just viewing the ruins would be, without the lecture and without the video. And then also just viewing the lecture, without the video or the location. Then one would be able to see how much aura they each yield by themselves. I believe that they affect each other and strengthen each other. It is when all three are together the aura is the most potent. I do not

(31)

believe that the ruins themselves would result in as much aura as they would in combination with a lecture or background to put them in a historical context.

This entire study comes down to authenticity. The perception of authenticity is tightly tied to aura, according to Walter Benjamin (1936). The three concepts of authenticity previously discussed, in section 2.2, are object based authenticity, staged authenticity and existential authenticity. The object based authenticity in this research are the ruins themselves. Previously also called the location. It is this kind of authenticity that Benjamin (1936) believed was the only kind of authenticity able to create an aura. This study does show that this type of authenticity without a doubt enhances the aura, but not that an aura cannot exist without it. This study evaluates the presence of aura in the two other types of authenticity. Staged and existential. The staged authenticity is present in the fact that the reproduction cannot be 100 % true. The final authenticity, being existential as been previously left out but is without a doubt very present in these sessions. Especially the two final ones.

“…existential authenticity, unlike object-related version, can often have nothing to do with the issue of whether toured objects are real. In search of tourist experience which is existentially authentic, tourists are preoccupied with an existential state of Being activated by certain tourist activities.”

Wang (1999)

A quote previously used, but is relevant here as well. The perception of aura is a feeling, something that is philosophical and very hard to measure. It is something that we experience within ourselves. Therefore this experience and this research also falls into the category of existential authenticity and I believe that it has as much a contribution to the overall sense of aura as the object based authenticity has. I believe that this is one of the reasons that the final two sessions resulted in a higher sensation of aura. When visiting the location the experience becomes more of just that, an experience. Participants have to travel to a location, walk up the hill and see the location from afar before having the privilege of coming inside. It is impossible to know how big a role this type of authenticity has, as previously discussed it is impossible to know what components of the experience did exactly what. But the fact that it played its part is without question.

(32)

8 Conclusions

8.1 Summary

How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction?

This research shows that it is possible to do in a varying of ways with a varying of results. The way to relay an aura with the most transmissible aura is to make use of both object based authenticity and staged authenticity. Combining a digital reproduction with the original object would thusly ensure that the aura shines through the reproduction as well. Even if the reproduction is a simulacrum of what the artefact itself might have looked like. However, this does not mean that an aura cannot exist without the artefact presence, or without object based authenticity. Aura is still potent in a staged authenticity setting, as long as the reproduction appears authentic. Although not as strong this study proves that it is still there.

Further testing is necessary to see the different tones and how much narrative can be used to heighten or alternatively lessen the sense of aura.

This research shows that it is the combination of different kinds of authenticity that results in the highest amount of aura. It was when combining the video (staged authenticity) with the location (object based authenticity) and the lecture (object based authenticity) that they all together created an existential authenticity in the experience. However further testing is required to fully understand how much each of the different components actually added to the aura individually.

Using these concepts that I have found to be effective, combining different kinds of authenticity, in a museum environment could prove effective to the overall experience of an exhibition. Using digital representations to set a scene and to show what the artefacts could have looked like has heightened the knowledge of visitors and would bring to a higher level of satisfaction.

The hypothesis previously described, the location being the key, is more complicated than so. The location has a smaller impact than I first believed, it is the object based authenticity, the artefact themselves, that provided this basis. However that is not to say that an artefact is needed to be able to perceive an aura from a reproduction. This research clearly proves that.

8.2 Discussion

Work in relation to aura has so far been limited within digital studies. Benjamin’s The Work

of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936) is an older work that does not relate to

digital culture in any way, as it was not invented at the time. It is hard to say what Benjamin would think about a digital reproduction, however it is unlikely that it would change his notion completely. Later in life, upon reflecting and gaining more experience, Benjamin did change his mind somewhat during his later years, but could unfortunately not elaborate on this fully before his death, (Rickly-Boyd 2012).

The debate between Walter Benjamin (1936) and MacCannell (1976) is interesting in relation to this particular work as it is in relation to the reproduction of the original artefact. Benjamin believed that a reproduction could not have an aura, whereas MacCannell claimed that it is the reproduction that is the aura. This research does not firmly state that either of these

(33)

researchers were wrong, however it sheds some light in the grey areas in-between the two extremes.

The simulacrum of a reproduction I find is an important distinction in this research. A simulation of an artefact is just that. A 100% accurate simulation of something that exist and that we know most things about, at least visually. This would be a mechanical reproduction which according to Benjamin (1936) would not have an aura, but according to MacCannell (1976) would have an aura. However the concept of a simulacrum strays even farther from the object based-authenticity of a simulation, and more into the staged authenticity. A simulacrum is a simulation of something that does not, or no longer exist. The particular reproduction in this study is a simulacrum, in that it is a simulation of something that no longer exists. It cannot be 100% authentic. This would mean that it would stray even farther away from the object based authenticity and the original artefact, which would in theory lessen the aura even further. The results of this study however proves that even though the aura might have lessened, it is still there as long as the work is viewed to be authentic. This means that a simulacrum can have an aura.

The work around authenticity has in contrast been far more vast and detailed, with researchers such as MacCannell (1976), Wang (1999) and Rickly-Boyd (2012). It is through these researchers and their theories that my work could take place, as it uses the concept concretized by these researchers.

A big part of this particular study has been its use of the digital medium in relation to authenticity and aura. The addition of digital on top of the mechanical reproduction should in theory take viewers one further step away from the original. Something that Benjamin (1936) would argue void of any aura. This study shows however that that is not the case. The digital factor in this study dig not remove the aura, however it is hard to know if the aura would have been greater if the reproductions had been done in the real world.

8.3 Future Work

Further testing is completely necessary to determine how authenticity and aura can be utilized in digital reproductions. Although this work confirms that it is more than possible, the nuances require further studying. More group sessions with different ages would be interesting to see if different ages respond differently to the experience. And if this would impact the aura. This study shows, at least through the interviews, that there is quite a big contrast between the intentions and interest of young people contra older people, in regards to history and culture. It would be interesting to see if this is a measurable difference in the aura.

A note about the actual video that the participants in this study got to view is that it can be considered narratively driven. This is something that could in theory affect the aura, and further testing would be necessary to find out if this is indeed the case. As the video transitions between different stages in history it builds up, albeit subtly, the presence of a story. This could be seen as something that would enhance the authenticity as well as the aura. Testing still pictures and then different iterations between still images and the final video would be interesting to measure if the aura changes throughout the different stages.

Another testing method would be to evaluate how big an impact the location had. In this research testing was limited to either off location or on location. Perhaps one could add a step

(34)

in-between this, such as a museum environment. This would theoretically enhance the aura further than a location with no relation to the artefact at all.

Breaking down the sessions that I have created into even smaller components could also prove advantageous in our understanding of aura. For example, testing each of the components individually would be interesting to see how much impact they each have on the overall experience. Testing just the artefact, without a lecture or reproduction, and testing only the lecture. Each of these could provide more of an answer to what resulted in the most amount of aura. Was it the artefact (object based authenticity), was it the reproduction (staged authenticity)? Was it the lecture? (Arguably a mix of all three kinds of authenticity, as it is an experience and would therefore also fall into the category of existential authenticity). Or was it a combination of all three, creating an experience (Object based, staged and existential authenticity)? Unfortunately, this is a question that this research, in its current iteration, was unable to answer. Therefore, further testing is necessary.

Testing to see if there is any difference in using a pure mechanical reproduction, such as a sculpture or something similar, instead of the digital reproduction presented in this study could also prove interesting as it would show if the digital factor increases or decreases the authenticity and aura.

(35)

References

Aronsson, P. & Larsson, E. (2002). Konsten att lära och viljan att uppleva. Historiebruk och

upplevelsepedagogik vid Foteviken, Medeltidsveckan och Jamtli. Växjö: Centrum för

kulturvetenskap.

Baudrillard, J (1981) Simulacra and Simulation. The university of Michigan Press

Benjamin, W (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Penguin Books Ltd

Bolter, J D., MacIntyre, B., Gandy, M., Schweitzer, P. (2006) Convergence Sage Publications. London

Boorstin, D. J. 1964. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Atheneum.

Heidegger, M. 1962.Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press

Lemay, P. & Maheux-Lessard, M., 2010. Investigating Experiences and Attitudes Toward Videogames Using a Semantic Differential Methodology. In: R. Bernhaupt, ed. Evaluating Using Experience in Games. Concepts and Methods. London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 89-106 MacCannell, D. 1976.The tourist: A new theory for the leisure class. New York:

Schocken Books

MacCannell, D. 1973. Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology 79:589–603.

MacCannel, D. (1973) Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. The University of Chicago Press.

Rickly-Boyd, J.N. (2012). “Authenticity & Aura: A Benjaminian Approach to Tourism” in

Annals of Tourism: A Social Science Journal, Vol. 39, Nr. 1, pp.: 269-289. New York:

Pergamon Press.

UNESCO (2016) What is meant by Cultural Heritage?

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural- property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/ Retrieved [2017-02-15]

UNESCO (2016) Introducing UNESCO: what we are

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/who-we-are/introducing-unesco/

Retrieved [2017-02-21]

Vecco, M.2010. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangiable to the intangiable. Journal of Cultural HeritageVolume 11, Issue 3, July–September 2010, Pages 321–324

(36)

Wang, N. (1999) Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience. Annals of tourism Research

(37)

9 APPENDIX

9.1 Statistics

9.1.1 Session One- off location, without lecture

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

62% 38%

How can one create an aura from a digital reproduction?