Descrizione: double























Titolo originale: MANIFESTO SERIES: Double




Argomento e tematiche affrontate

Descrizione: double

Since the 1960s doubles, copies, remixes and reproductions have been a central concern of the discourse surrounding art. Now thanks to the Internet, appropriation has become the norm, and our relationship with the double needs an update. Double is the latest installment from Storefront for Art and Architecture’s Manifesto Series, and within its pages it feels like this conversation is taking on a new, revitalized form. A group of artists, architects, critics, historians and theorists, discuss the effects, desires and implications in the act of doubling, replicating or copying.”


Giudizio Complessivo: 6 (scala 1-10)

Scheda compilata da: Claudia Bonora

Corso di Architettura e Composizione Architettonica 3 a.a.2014/2015





Serkan Ozkaya born in 1973, Istanbul, Turkey. Lives in New York City, USA. He holds an M.F.A. from Bard College, New York, and a Ph.D in German Language and Literature from Istanbul University, where he also earned his B.A. and M.A. Ozkaya has been an artist-in-residence at the École Régionale des Beaux Arts de Nantes (2000–2001), Rooseum in Malmö with the IASPIS grant (2002), Platform Recent Art Center in Istanbul (2003–2004), and at Kuenstlerhaus Bethanien, Berlin (2006).  He is a conceptual artist whose work deals with topics of appropriation and reproduction, and typically operates outside of traditional art spaces.

Serkan Ozkaya



Designed by Pentagram, the book plays out the textual narrative in physical form, giving the text another dimension. The book spine acts as a mirror, the front cover image reflected on the back. Each piece varies slightly in design; there is no dominant guiding voice. The first half is comprised of succinct essays, compact packages of information. The second half takes on a different form, made up of transcriptions of  several conversations around three paella dinners, leaving the finale feeling more open ended. The book offers a way into the conversation. Although composed of manifestos, seemingly concrete, final statements, it proposes new questions and offers points of departure.




The author argues for a shift in architectural copyright away from the right of the human towards the right of the building itself. Sometimes architecture has to be protected from its architect, it is recognition of the agency of buildings above and beyond their ties with any sort of human authorial control. Copying is the way in which buildings reproduces themselves and they do need human in order to do it



In a time of crisis for the architecture, FIAA argue that the only way to proceed is trough Agonistic Replicas. They advocate for the reconstruction of architectural imaginaries that had been forgotten, destroyed. They propose the salvation of architecture in a danger of extinction, the rebuilding of the hazardous architecture destroyed for political reason. They propose Agonistic Replicas think like an original revisiting of what have been discarded, its novelty lie in the copy.



Everything in our culture can be copied, now it is hard to distinguish between the original and the copies. When things can be infinitely reproduced, they no longer have traditional value in their physical form and becoming conceptual. Copying acquired a negative association with mass production they became easy and cheap. If anyone could own it, why desire it? But the aura of the original never disappear, to see a copy is to know that an original exist, to want a copy is to want an original in another form. A copy is a form of echo, citation is crucial to the copy it guarantees the continuity of the source and doesn't create a false notion of originality. citation is a powerful tool that creates history.



The author analyzed the concept of copy and reproduction through the study of two different operas of the Turkish artist Ozkaya A sudden gust of wind and a replica of Michelangelo's David, it is double the size, made of Styrofoam and painted gold. The common denominator is an absence of the artist's authorial gesture. In the first case the difference between Ozkaya's installation and the artworks after which it is title, namely Wall and Hokusai, is that the pieces of paper escaping from a folder and blown away by the wind appear to carry some type of written or other visual information that is lost, such loss does not register in Ozkaya's opera. Moreover these impersonal paper sheets appear to moved in a direction that is self-willed, opposed to the other, they are independent from any atmospheric or natural condition. In the same manner in Double David there is an absence of the artist that disappear, but in this case it has been pushed even further, to a more pervasive absence of human agency in general, the power has been shifted to the technology. Duplication invites continuous replication until the presence of the original copy and the human agency entirely dissipate. 


The author presents some series of doubles, reproductions and seriality. She starts from the art with Andy Warhol, through the music with Philippe Glass up to the human ambit with the image  of twins, highlighting that in the past and in the present is hard to find a real "double" example while in the future A.Heiss thinks that all people will be cloned, so the discussion on the copy will no longer have reason to occur.



Every people makes this interview explain his idea of double, copy or replication. Someone thinks replication is a way to make imperfect copy, someone else the idea of the double of the double, or the fake double, someone that fake doesn't need an original to be copied and other thoughts; so a question rise between the partecipant, it's possible copyright a copy of the copy? But like in the case of David it is the computer model that is the mold; that is the original. The mold is the thing that is the closest to the idea. The ideas wil never have just one reincarnation. The artist who create a copy with our influences create a new original.

Another them is the rendition of the models of masters is killing the creativity. The artist can emulate conceptual production that is implicit in the work or pick up his own references and mix them, these are two possible way, everyone choses the best for him, there isn't an exact answer. But there's another implication we can considerer: some architectures that have not been able to fulfill or realize their potentiality, should be copied, copied in a contemporary context to see if that work still makes sense now, but to rewrite something in the same way in which it was conceived would mean that the context had not changed, that the context which brought the work into existence is, in certain conition, the same.

So the role of doubles, copies, and reproductions today is to break free from their ties to an all-pervasive human dominance; to activate and bring forward the autonomy of non-human entities.  The Double is now an exercise in blurring boundaries. And although there is still a need for the prefix Re- to say or write about reproduction, repetition, remixing and replication, perhaps in spirit, as activities, they will find a subtle shift in their prefix. With the mental and physical space advanced by new technologies everything is infinitely reproducible and nothing is fixed. The aura lost with the original has been replaced by the need to just keep moving.