Artwork has always been reproducible by apprentices practicing their craft and those looking to make money, but mechanical reproduction is a new concept (Section I, 2).  The Greeks used founding and stamping; The Middle Ages used engraving and etching; the 19^th century had lithography which traced designs on stone instead of wood.  Photography was created a few decades later for picture reproduction and sound reproduction was created for use in films.  These are all types of technical reproduction which provided a standard for reproducing all works of art. 

The domain of tradition (Section II, 3) and ritual (Section IV, 5) is heavily present in art work.  The concept of “aura” is used to describe the feelings associated with works of art.  For Benjamin, aura comes from institutions of power (top-down: according to influences of government, church and state).  Aura includes originality, authenticity, and inapproachability (inability to access it; distance felt between a person and work of art).  The ritualistic part of aura ties the value of authentic works of art to the location of its original use (Section IV, 5). 

1. Authenticity: historical testimony experienced by an object
2. Originality: “unique existence at a place where it happens to be”
3. You cannot have authenticity without originality (its precursor).
4. Originals also have authority, where technical reproductions do not.

�

Technical/mechanical reproductions of art lack a “presence in time and space” (3), and they have no authority because they have no history (i.e. authenticity).  On the other hand, there are some advantages of technical reproduction (Section II, 3):

1. It is more independent of the original than manual reproduction.  Photography can bring out aspects of the original that cannot be seen by naked eye.  Photos can also capture images which escape natural vision (i.e. enlargement, slow motion).

2. Can place the copy into new situations which would be out of reach for the original.  It enables the original to meet the beholder/viewer/spectator half-way by coming into the studio, study, office or other living spaces (i.e. bring things closer, 4).  Even with this advantage, however, the quality is always depreciated (3).

�

Technical reproduction removes the reproduced object from tradition (3) and dependence on ritual (5) which causes loss of aura.  Instead, culture is an industry (where art and culture has been commodified) and art is no longer produced for originality but for its reproducibility (5).  The definition of art – the way we make, see, and use art – has changed:

�

1. There is no such thing as originality anymore (photos, movies).
2. Originality is no longer a criterion for judging art.
3. No one makes art for originality (but for its reproducibility).

�

Original conceptions of aura are lost, but replaced in mass culture by aura of people and celebrities (8), but Benjamin believes that this is misplaced or misguided aura (9).  Since there is no more aura, an artificial build-up of the actor’s personality is used to create a sense of aura.  This personality is fake and is a type of commodification (9).

�

The perception of the world has changed and ordinary people are more meaningfully connected to art.  Benjamin uses the analogy of Magician is to Painter AS Surgeon is to Cameraman (10).  The painter obtains a total picture where the cameraman reassembles fragments in a new way which defines a new type of reality, free from all equipment (cords, lights, etc.).  This reality is an illusion, but it has changed perceptions and participant roles (10).  New roles have been created with technology:

�

1. Technology demystifies artistic creation and almost democratizes culture in this way.  Spectators are now participants/collaborators (i.e. differences are merely functional, pg. 9).  Now, anyone can be an artist (blogger, fan-fic, photographer, part of a film). 
2. More people can access works of art – no longer just for the elite. For Benjamin, original conceptions of aura divided people according to class, so that those in lower class cannot afford to travel to see high works of art like the Mona Lisa
3. Mass culture destroys aura.  Art is now based on democracy and politics (a good thing). 

Ms Paint: Painting Mona Lisa - Watch the top videos of the week here

We now enjoy the standardized convention so that the less social significance something has, the more enjoyment we receive (11).  The masses seek distraction (where the work of art is absorbed) over concentration (where the person is absorbed by the work of art) (13).  However, if technology is exploited, propaganda and aestheticized fascism can result (i.e. Germany).

At the end of the essay, Benjamin goes back to discussing Facism.  Facism succeeded in Germany by aesteticizing politics (14) – taking their brand/politics and turning it into art (i.e. cloaking it).  All efforts to render politics through aesthetics leads to war (15).

�

Relationship to Prior Readings

Much like Sontag (1977), Benjamin points out the differences between the real world and the image world (i.e. what is represented by photography and film).  According to Benjamin, the reality that we know is an illusion, but we require (and expect) it nonetheless.  This demarcation between what is represented and what is actually there also ties in nicely with Dragga & Voss (2001) in Cruel Pies: The Inhumanity of Technical Illustrations.  These projected illusions would be similar to what Dragga & Voss refer to graphic or visual lies that are ethically misleading.  Benjamin would assert that such representations work to close geographical and social gaps through the redefinition of aura, but these projections are misrepresentations of reality – and we should think of them as such.  What are the implications of creating such visual lies?  What role does it play in society and in culture, generally speaking? 

Relevance to Own Work

From a political perspective, theorists have claimed that technical writing acts as a controlling source in culture because of its standardization and knowledge hierarchy.  It values one type of knowledge (formal, institutional, top-down) over that of others (informal ways of knowing; self-taught).  In this way, I suppose that more attention could be paid to the photographs or images used by technical writers when designing technical illustrations (see Dragga & Voss).  I am sure there are other connections to be made between this text and the field of technical writing, but I cannot think of more at this time.

Sources