An Aura in work

In Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” he discusses his take mass production and its effect on creativity and uniqueness as well as its effect on the audience. To him the concept of aura may usefully be illustrated with reference to the aura of natural ones and he defines aura as the ‘unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be’ and how they are significant to the audience.

For me I’m on the fence on whether or not mass produced objects lack an aura. While yes if you use Benjamin’s definition of aura and put it in context with mass produced object, then yeah, it would lose its’ uniqueness if it is one of one thousand. However I don’t think Benjamin’s idea that something mass produced would effectively squash any creativity and uniqueness to an audience. You can go on the internet and type in any movie that has been mass produced and get a different perspective of the movie. Benjamin compares a painting and a movie on page 335. He says that the ‘painting invites a spectator to contemplation; before it the spectator can abandon himself to his association’. However before a ‘movie frame he can’t because no sooner as he grasped a scene it has already changed’.

Yet there are discussions about certain scenes in a movie, and they can speculate about hidden meanings and contemplate a scene. While yes it can’t be right away if the scene strikes a deep enough cord, it inevitably stays with the viewer and they can allow themselves to abandon themselves to their association. A movie is just as much as an art form as a painting is. There can be hidden meanings (for example: several groups say there is the word SEX in several Disney movies), different genres such as feminism, action, homosexuality, etc.

While Benjamin is right in some areas, that mass production does end up causing an aura to be lacking, it’s not completely gone and also allows just as much contemplation from a spectator.