Response to Walter Benjamin by Kevin, Ben, Scott and Duy

Walter Benjamin starts off by mentioning the notion of reproduction of artwork. He differentiated between manual and process reproduction. He then discusses the one element that is lacking in reproduction, which is the context of the artwork; it’s presence in time and space. Following this, the decay of the aura is talked about. This decay depends on two factors: the desires to “bring things ‘closer’ spatially and humanly,” and to abolish the uniqueness of realities by accepting their reproductions.
He outlines the parasitic relationship that art once maintained in relation to ritual, and believes that mechanical reproduction gives independence to art. He states: “Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art.” As an example, he compares painting and film, which can be described as hot and cold art.

Mechanical reproduction abolishes uniqueness, thus theoretically increasing supply; and therefore, value of such artwork would be less. In contrast, however, mechanical reproduction provides artists with access to a much larger audience, which can result in more reputable artworks. Some mediums, such as painting, still have original versions that are worth much more than copies due to their context, but prints still expose the work to a larger audience. One concern is that aggressive reproduction would result in bulk information. As art breaks its ties with ritual, artists are still dependent on funding, which is generally provided by outside sources. The motives of these sponsors may not necessarily be art for the sake of art. By having art distributed to a larger population, the quality of art is continually being pushed, as artists are more likely to be inspired and challenged by their peers.

Question: In the future, would it be a possibility to not only reproduce artwork but to imbue the reproductions with context?