Reproduction of Art

In his essay, Benjamin is critical of the modern technologies that enable anyone to essentially reproduce a work of art, namely through photography and film. He claims that a reproduction of a work of art does not give off the same sort of feel or authenticity of the original. It's "aura", as he coins it, is diminished in the productions of lookalikes and copies. Benjamin states that this is also the case with photography and film, and that such works of art produced via these methods does not exude the same aura of the subject. Hence, our experience of the "art object" is diminished.

Though anyone can really just pick up a camera and take a picture, it really does take a special eye to make a work of art in the field of photography and film. The photographer is able to enhance an image, or to make the viewer see the subject in a new, never-before-seen way. Does this not make the subject in itself new? Won't the image produced be original in its own accord, i.e., a work of art? It will exude its own aura, different from the subject. It does not necessarily lessen the value of the original, the subject. Nor is it to be considered inferior to the subject or original.

Though Benjamin claims that our experience is mostly diminished by mechanical reproduction through photography and film, they also serve as a way for art to reach the masses in ways though impossible. The speed at which photography and film is produced and brought to the masses is phenomenal. In other words, they bring art to the people on a large scale.