In Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, he focuses on the shift of traditional art in the 20th century and why that shift away from traditional ideas is occurring. This is in large part due to reproduction of a work of art and he expresses this as a negative change because it is lacking in the element of “its presence in time and space” and “unique existence.” [1] His ideas of what the future of art will be like is also explained and Benjamin expresses his concerns about this, which are a direct outcome due to modern technologies that focus on reproduction and the use of photography.

          The concept of aura was an important focus in Walter Benjamin’s writing. He describes the “aura” as decaying with changes in the medium of contemporary perception. Aura of natural objects, as opposed to historical ones, is defined as a “unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be.” [2] Based on Benjamin’s definition, the aura of a work of art is unique to the space it is in. This has to do with the idea of authenticity because to take away an object’s aura, this takes away from its uniqueness and diminishes its authenticity. Because aura is tied to its presence, there cannot be replicas. [3] This is put into context when discussing film because the actors' presence and production is what the art is, without their presence, this cannot be replicated and reproduced in the same way. This term implies that “aura includes the atmosphere of detached and transcendent beauty and power supporting cultic societies.” [4] This includes legitimacy of an object based on its existence in history. The aura and “art” depends on uniqueness, as is used by Benjamin to define aura. By creating replicas, this can take away from the uniqueness and these replicas are not authentic. According to Benjamin, the act of creating replicas takes away the aura and can “lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition.” [5] Reproduction of art substitutes the unique experience that traditionally comes with art. When this experience is taken away, the aura is also lessened.

          Benjamin refers to “the first time in world history” where mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its dependence on ritual. [6] By this, he means that the act of reproducing art has emancipated the art itself. This causes art from being a unique piece to an art piece that has become designed and manufactured for the purpose and gains of reproducibility. Once art has ceased to relate to the dependence of ritual and tradition, there are both negative consequences and benefits of this freedom. The negative consequences tie in with aura and how this concept has become less prevalent in the art world when there is reproduction occurring. This also relates to the cult value, which has the idea that demand for art should remain high because if not, this takes away from the distinctiveness of a piece of art and makes the art less exclusive, which is a trait of cult value. [7] This can be seen as a negative aspect in the sense of cult value because it strays away from tradition by stripping the art of its originality and in a way diminishes the cult value that an audience has built surrounding an art piece. On the other hand, there are benefits that come along with this freedom. By technical or mechanical reproduction, art can be reproduced in larger quantities, although certain aspects are taken away, the value of reproduction is that it still allows the art to be spread and enjoyed by an even larger audience. This can be a benefit for both a viewer and the creator of art because many create art with the intention of allowing it to be appreciated by many. 

          According to Benjamin, photography “transformed the entire nature of art.” [8] First, he discusses the dispute that compares the artistic value of painting and photography. The question of whether photography should be considered as art comes into play, but the specific question of if photography has changed the entire nature of art was not raised until later in history. [9] This question was also asked about film and it can be connected to photography because they both use the camera to capture the performance, but in different ways. His argument on film focuses primarily on “the revolutionary potential of film as a mode of mechanical reproduction” and similar to photography, the audience views are becoming synonymous with the perspective accorded to the camera, making it impersonal to viewers. [10] Photography can be seen as having an effect on the nature of art because with the development of photography, it brought in new possibilities in creating art that could not have been done so before. For example, using a photographic negative, many copies of the prints can be made and even though the “authentic” piece of art would be the original print, it does not make sense to have this as an art piece. [11] Because this is unlike other art, previous to photography, it questions whether these prints of photographic negatives are actually authentic which relates back to the aura of art work and breaking tradition, which is why photography can be seen as “transforming the entire nature of art.” [12]

          Benjamin predicted that aura and the sense of traditional art would heavily decrease as the years go on due to reproduction of art increases. One way this has been made more efficient and possible is through the use of photography. It has dominated the art world by allowing mass production to become more available and reproductions to be made instantly, taking away from the uniqueness that was tied with photography, and art in general, from before. In our modern day, it has become very common to see art that has been mass produced of the same images. This is common with photography, as multiple prints of the same image are able to be printed as many times as desired. We have even seen reproductions of famous art pieces, such as the Mona Lisa, that have been reprinted many times or even painted again by other artists. Mass production is even prevalent with lesser known art pieces that have been created with the specific intention to reproduce, such as art intended for hotels or magazines. Art in both these examples are meant to be printed many times to be viewed by the masses. The controversy of this focuses on the negative aspects, “in mass culture the materials of art are exploited although art works, except very rarely and that by accident, are not created. Mass culture allows art neither to thrive nor to perish, since art is at once its most dangerous competitor and its one indispensable source of ideas.” [13] The outcomes of mass production, although may be appealing to mass culture, can diminish the qualities once traditionally associated with art. This ties in with Benjamin’s idea of aura because a particular photograph, just like any art can have aura and that aura can be lost with reproduction.

          An example of a modern day photo that demonstrates the ideas, transformation, and consequences that Benjamin predicted is the famous photograph of President Bush pictured when he was informed of a second plane hitting the Twin Towers during the 2001 9/11 attacks. The photograph is taken in the exact moment President Bush is being told while at an elementary school in Florida. In the year 2001, in the midst of the country recovering from the terrorist attacks, this photo held a great weight, and even twenty years later, this photo still carries this weight as the photo has not stopped circulating and has been reproduced many times. This photo is a perfect example that fits Benjamin’s predictions and anticipations that photography allows an image to be readily available to the masses due to hand held cameras and modern use of reproduction. This also fits the narrative that photography was able to “transform the entire nature of art.” [14] The nature of art previous to modern photography and mass reproduction focuses on authenticity and uniqueness that comes with the individuality that an art piece was able to have. This is no longer the case in art as we now have modern technology that defies what was previously considered traditional, and now it caters to the masses. Walter Benjamin closely predicted the modern day ideas and transformations that have taken place in art.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 3, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
[2] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 5, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
[3] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 10, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
[4] Erik Larsen, “The Work of Art”, Other Modernist Figures, Broderson XV (1936): 3, https://campuspress.yale.edu/modernismlab/the-work-of-art-in-the-age-of-mechanical-reproduction/
[5] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 4, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
[6] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 6, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
[7] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 7, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
[8] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 1, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
​​​​​​​[9] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 8, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
​​​​​​​[10] Erik Larsen, “The Work of Art”, Other Modernist Figures, Broderson XV (1936): 6, https://campuspress.yale.edu/modernismlab/the-work-of-art-in-the-age-of-mechanical-reproduction/
​​​​​​​[11] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 6, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
​​​​​​​[12] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 1, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
​​​​​​​[13] Virginia Lee Owen, “The Effects of Mass Markets on Artistic Quality”, Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer Vol. 3, No. 2 (1979): 24, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41810258
​​​​​​​[14] Benjamin Walter, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Illuminations, New York: Schocken Books (1969): 1, https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf