Questions of Aura

Benjamin describes an intangible and elusive element of original artwork which, though it can only be explained in the vaguest of terms, is weighted with great value. This distinct, creative enigma, which Benjamin has termed as the "aura" of a work of art, is immediately stricken from its source of influence upon the mechanical recreation of the art form. To me, the most interesting question with regards to the aura deals with the conditions of its value. Why, when two pictures look identical in every aspect, is the original bestowed with such significance? It seems of little sense to claim that there is great meaning in the deliberate form of a painting, only to dismiss the importance of an object of the same form but different conception. If the objects have the same form and function, and therefor should logically hold the same truths within them, why are those born of men viewed so differently than those born of machine. It seems to me that there is a mysticism with the romanticized ideal of human creativity which most wish to cling to. The possibility of mechanical recreation of such artistic endeavors destroys this illusion of aura for some by collapsing the singularity of the work. However, the artistic spirit and creativity in which the work was conceptualized is preserved. It is not the idea that the machine creates, simply the form. The complex web of thought and emotion which constitutes the experience of both artistic creation and perception are things which machines know nothing of. Furthermore, it often occurs that the meaning and cultural significance of a work are overshadowed by the intoxication with its aura. Mechanical reproduction is a tool for stripping away this veil and bringing the true virtue of the art to the masses.