Benjamin’s essay discusses the role of technological reproduction in determining aesthetic experience, specifically looking at the effects of film and photography in altering our perceptions of art. In a way, he sees technological reproduction as a means of creating new art, contributing thus to the loss of the aura of a work of art. Benjamin defines the aura as “[a] strange tissue of space and time: the unique apparition of a distance, however near it may be” (23). In other words, the loss of the aura would mean that our perception towards the work of art changes due to the influence of new technologies.

Benjamin begins by stating that the work of art “has always been reproducible” (20). This basic fact leads him to question the extent to which technological reproduction has influenced not only our perception of art, but also the artistic process. He argues that technological reproduction modifies the way in which we perceive all known works of art and thus, this modifies their effect. Benjamin also interestingly mentions how it [technological reproduction] had also “captured a place of its own among the artistic process” (21). As a result, the reproduction of art via technology imposes itself as a new form of art, thus posing a problem for the original or traditional form of art.

This brings us to the problem of authenticity. Benjamin explains that the number one thing lacking in the reproduction of art is “the here and the now of the work of art – its unique existence in a particular place” (21). He explains that in technological reproduction, the work of art loses its full authority because of two reasons. First, the reproduction process is more independent of the original than manual reproduction. Second, technological reproduction can displace a copy of the original to other situations or contexts that are otherwise inaccessible to the original. Therefore, the presence of the original work is crucial for authenticity since the latter is “the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it from its origin on, ranging from its physical duration to the historical testimony relating to it” (22). He explains the difference between the images seen by the naked eye compared to the images reproduced by photography. Evidently, the images taken by a photo can be reproduced whereas the images seen by the naked eye are unique and “escape natural optics altogether” (21).

It appears nonetheless that for Benjamin, it is the reproduction of these works of art that destroys their “aura”. I can understand this distinction when dealing with classic works of art like the Last Supper in that seeing this painting in real life is much different than simply finding the image on Google. However, is it really important that all objects be authentic? The reason I ask is because we live in a world where virtually everything is reproduced and where the original in many cases has been forgotten. Media constantly reproduces the reality and produces something new for example. What is produced often has nothing to do with the truth. Moreover, reproduction and authenticity becomes problematic when thinking of other contemporary examples such as religion. For example, Islam, as interpreted by some of its extreme followers, does not seem to correspond to the authentic word of God found in the Quran. In some cases, the Quran seems to have been reproduced and used as a means for justifying violence. I believe this is what Benjamin meant when he was talking about the politicization of art.