“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” raises more questions for me every time I read it. For instance, what are the differences between mechanical and digital reproduction as far as Benjamin’s assertions go? How is a work of art different when it is meant for massive and immediate distribution vs. when it is meant for individual consumption?

Benjamin’s suggestion that “the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in… its unique existence in time and place” is clearly true of mechanical reproduction, but what about a digital work that is inherently the same exact digital code no matter where it is executed? Have we managed to escape what he refers to as the deprecation of presence in some way? Or have we ensured it even with the “original” instance of a digital work? Benjamin sees viewing portable art as a very different experience from viewing art that can exist only in its individual location (e.g. a painting in a traveling exhibition vs. an icon that is part of a church). How is new media that can be instantly disseminated different or the same?

Have we absorbed mechanical reproduction so well into our culture that it has become the very tradition that Benjamin argues it caused art to escape from? If so, how has absorbing mechanical reproduction changed the way we think? Is the shift from mechanical reproduction to digital reproduction bringing about some change of thought similar to Ong’s ideas about the progression from orality to literacy? Benjamin talks about modes of perception changing according to modes of existence (and, we can assume, technologies available)– how are our modes of perception shifting as our culture becomes increasingly digital?

By section VI of the essay, Benjamin is starting to sow the seeds of his political argument, i.e. that as art loses its basis in cult through mechanical reproduction it loses its autonomy and begins to be based in politics. He doesn’t state this explicitly, but I get the impression that part of the reason he views the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction this way is because he sees us as having lost our ability to interact with an individual work in an individual way. In other words, it is not only the work that has lost its autonomy, but us. So, I wonder what new media is doing, according to this idea? Are distracted by it? Absorbed by it? Is it doing something else altogether? What kind of power do we have as individuals when we relate to it?

Even though I’ve read this article several times, I still struggle with the concept of aura, although in some ways I think that is by design; Benjamin could not have chosen a more nebulous and loaded word to describe the concept. Frankly, his explanatory note (#5) just confuses me more. The connection of each statement to the previous feels circular to me and eventually just makes me think of a quote from Zoolander: “Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty. ”

Merman