Technological reproducibility has brought a serious of changes in the domain of art, the transformation of art is, in a large extent, promoted by the development of technology, modern artworks are now endowed with new modes, features and values along with the destruction of traditional specificities.

I noticed that “aura” is a keyword in this article, it plays an important role in Benjamin’s theories. The aura of traditional artworks has three characteristics:

1.Authenticity: the here and now. No matter in which way technological reproduction being accomplished, technological reproduction does not have the authenticity of the original. It is not the one and only object in that specific circumstance.

On one hand, the independence of technological reproduction jeopardizes and devalues the here and now of artwork; on the other hand, its independence seems superior to the nature of authenticity, it detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition, it also helps the original to reach recipients in their won situation. Anyway, authenticity of artwork is irreplaceable, it’s the essential reason and the most important aspect to the aura of the original.

2. The value of cult. The earliest artworks have their basis in ritual, magical or religious function of artworks is always a part of the aura. Because of this traditional artistic concept, repetition or similarity have always been seen as a despised artistic creation, pastiche is often contemplated as a mediocre performance and creativity recession, suffered taunts. With the development of the history and art, this function of worship gradually reduces, but it has always been associated with the production and appreciation of the work of art, just become unconscious from consciousness. Technological reproducibility separates artworks from its parasitic obedience to ritual and its basis in cult, the mystique of artwork is dispelled by numerous reproductions. It is an important driving force behind the destruction of the aura. The artistic function revealed at last, the social function of art is revolutionized.

Besides, the shift of two poles in the artwork itself—cult value and exhibition value—one increases while the other one weakens is a getting increasingly distinct with the development of technological reproducibility.

3. A strange tissue of space and time. The third characteristic is linked closely to the two above characteristics, the distance of space and time comes from the uniqueness and the value of cult of artworks, the distance from the present-day to “the here and now” underlines the uniqueness and permanence of the original. There always exists inaccessibility to the work of art because of this distance.

With the passage of time, the annihilation of the aura is inevitable, Williams cherished regret for the disappearance of the aura, but he has taken a more positive perspective on an inevitable historical change—the renewal of original.

Then, I’d like to talk about film, the seventh art—the integration of other six arts—literature, drama, music, sculpture, painting and architecture. It’s unsurprising that Benjamin takes film as the representative of technological reproducibility, the first art form whose artistic character is entirely determined by its reproducibility, the artwork most capable of improvement. Film is closely associated with technological advancements—after the Industrial Revolution, technologies have made astonishing progress—photography, montage, lighting, synchronism, dubbing, even the apparition of 3D. As the most interpenetration of reality with equipment, filmmaking is highly significant in the realm of artworks and the relation between the masses and the art.

However, progressive factors of technological reproduction have not caused sufficient attention; on contrary, it often lead to people’s misunderstanding, and even some degree of hostility. Benjamin’s close friend, the famous scholar of the Frankfurt School, Adorno, thinks that the cultural industry of technology-based replication always meets the needs of consumers, it is prescribed by the community, the consumer is always just the object of the cultural industry. Adorno argues that film inhibits the subjective creativity and imagination of the audience, technological reproduction will hinder people from understanding the world. In my opinion, that sort of criticism is biased. They completely oppose reproduction to creation. In fact, in today’s society, reproduction and creation are not inconsistent or contradictory. Nowadays, cinematography has become mature, an increasing number of excellent films are appreciated by the audience. Technological reproducibility of films leads to profound changes in the way we think about this world and our life, it has a tremendous influence on our apperception of the relation between reality and fiction, the masses and the art are now closely connected by the film.