At first, the essay discussed how the technological reproducibility of art takes away the uniqueness and authenticity of the artwork, which he called the aura of art. This statement reminds me of an artist named Andy Warhol, who was famous for doing repetitive screen printing pop art. It makes me wonder if will Benjamin thinks Andy Warhol’s works have no ‘aura’. Benjamin worried that the technological reproducibility of art can be used in politics as the production of propaganda can be extremely efficient and impactful through art. Then when I continued reading I realised Benjamin was not totally pessimistic about the technological reproducibility of art, exhibition value in art started to drive back the cult value in art. In the past, art is just for the upper classes( minority ), art is like a cult. However, the mass reproduction of artwork( film and photography) allows more people to access them. I believe Benjamin did also foresee the possibility of emancipation through the technological reproducibility of art.
However, Adorno, a philosopher of the frankfurt school, had a debate with Benjamin. Adorno had a much more pessimistic view as he believed the technological reproducibility of art will bring oppression. Under capitalism, the upper classes possess the reproduction technology and they can determine the content of the artwork. Mass reproduction of art also causes standardisation. He called it the ‘cultural industry’. I think his argument is valid and seems this debate is hard to settle.
Huang Ka Lam Anson 3036079320
Nice understanding of Benjamin’s text. I like that you brought up Warhol as an example in demonstrating the relationship between “aura” and reproducibility, and your reflections on whether it reveals a degradation of authenticity. It is insightful how you identified how accessibility and standardization of art is in exchange for authenticity and introduced Adorno’s capitalistic view as an antithesis to Benjamin’s idea.