Benjamin is critical about the technological reproduction, which diminishes the aura of the original art, especially under capitalism. I will resonate his argument while adding my two cents on it.
Reproduction undermines the aesthetic value of an art form. Reproduced rapidly with technology, art is now no long unique nor authentic, leading to the decay of its aura. Therefore, we view art differently from the past. Flickering and fast moving images have revolutionized on our perception on art. For example, the Shambles is featured in a Harry Potter as Diagon Alley. The movie is so famous that this fictional identity overwhelms its culture significance and tradition. The aura an art form is decays by the excessive reproduction.
Apart from the loss of innate value of art, flooded with images and information, we seek distraction from art instead of appreciation. Viewing art was a serene experience with a small audience. Art critics gathered at salon, discussing paintings. While art is promoted as a popular culture. Looking at arts has become a culture symbol. Therefore, the mass audience is entertained by viewing art rather than the art itself.
Bosco Yeung Ho Lam 3035794210
Toward the end of his essay, Benjamin elaborates how the mass production of art “produces a different kind of participation” (p.39), which you pointed out neatly. He follows on “distraction and concentration” (p.39-40) where “[A] person who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it; … the distracted masses absorb the work of art into themselves” (p.40). Zooming out to Benjamin’s broader concern, I am curious about your take on how the devaluation of artwork contributes to the abolition of capitalism (see p.19, par. 1).