With the rising technology and productivity, art was pushed off the pedestal and, like commodities, became reproducible and took on a new value. Benjamin attempted to show us that technological reproducibility has taken away the authenticity and the aura of artworks. I was pretty confused when I saw the word “aura” for the first time and wondered how this word could be connected with the artwork. But I gradually understand his argument that aura, as described from a spatial perspective, is the unique manifestation of something so close in feeling but at a certain distance away. It is featured by distance and uniqueness.
I agree with Benjamin in that technological reproduction has eliminated uniqueness from artworks. In addition, with its strong desire to make things “closer”, the modern public has freed their distance from the artworks. Therefore, the technological reproduction age leads to the disappearance of aura. But I think it is this kind of change that allows us in the modern world to enjoy our favorite artworks at our own pace. We can see a variety of architecture and films in different places at different times around the world, be it models or replicas.
— DENG Shuyuan 3035978452
Your explanation of Benjamin’s argument is well demonstrated. I appreciate your personal reflections and the idea of distance as a more tangible and distinctive feature for the “aura”, and how technological advancement has diminished it in exchange for increased accessibility for the masses.