Walter Benjamin: Group response from Natalia, Fernando, Mike, and Martin.

The central argument of Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” stipulates that the authenticity and authority of works of art diminishes as they are massively reproduced. He does not suggest that this is a new phenomenon, as art has always been reproducible, but its scale has never been as wide. He equates “authority of the object” with its “aura”, which is based on a number of external factors that do not carry over into the work’s reproductions, such as its history, ownership, and uniqueness. As art is reproduced, and the aura fades out, the ritual aspect of art is overpowered by its political and social value. Making a distinction between the “cult” and “exhibition” value of the work, Benjamin suggests that the “exhibition” value increases with reproductions, draining art of its “cult value”. He further goes on to apply this model to the distinction between film and theatre, arguing that the non-auratic nature of film is a result of the production method which is aimed at reaching a non-specific audience.

Our group discussion focused on trying to develop a definition of “aura” which could be applied to contemporary art production, drawing a distinction between "aura" and "status" of objects. In Benjamin’s argument, this term is used very specifically to describe the sense of awe and admiration for the singularity and authenticity of a work of art. In contemporary society, especially due to the advancement of post-modernist definitions of art, the singularity and authenticity become blurred and deliberately challenged. In a way, this is the very core of Benjamin’s argument. However, many questions arise as to whether the “aura” is really fading or merely mutating to a different form. As definitions of art shift, does the aura follow? We attempted to apply Benjamin’s concepts to a number of contemporary phenomena, such as open source software (does it become an “authentic object”, if it is worked simultaneously by many people?), computer graphics (could it be the ultimate non-auratic work, in Benjamin’s sense?), and designer objects. Also, we discussed whether the flip side of Benjamin’s argument could also hold true. Making an example of New Yorker cartoons, we discussed whether the original drawing, which is often sold for thousands of dollars, acquires a stronger aura if it is reproduced in multiple copies.

Question: If the aura is composed of history and authority of the object (both of which are socially and culturally-constructed factors), then how does its definition shift as a result of reproduction and how does this change affect further cultural production?