Reading Response: Walter Benjamin

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

In class yesterday we discussed Walter Benjamin's article and the entire time I found myself searching for the words to verbalize my thoughts. First off, before I begin my argument, we have to understand that this article was written in 1935, lifetimes ago as far as art is concerned. That being said, I can say that the aura of a piece of work is comprised of many different aspects, which Benjamin touches on in his article. Things like historical context and importance, uniqueness and authenticity are among some of the aspects that make up a piece's aura. Supposedly, those pieces that are original and authentic are inevitably more valuable in a person's eyes than a replica. We used the example of an original Van Gogh painting versus a replica of the same painting. Knowing that the painting is an original would enhance the overall aesthetic of the piece, even if you really couldn't tell a difference between the two. But in the case of today, digital art work can be "replicated" many times. What makes the piece an original? Is it the first version the artist posted to their website? What determines authenticity in an age where machines can produce the output of a piece versus the artist's hands, like photos in a darkroom versus photos in Photoshop? It's a tough question to answer, and the only thing I kept thinking was that the aura was not just limited to authenticity or historical context, but being present with the work. Experiencing it in its full glory - whether it be a film in a theater with the lights low or a print of a digital photo.