Benjamin discussed the artwork’s aura in his paper, tying it to the evolution of the notion of art throughout the Mechanical Reproduction era. He referred to the film’s development. If we ask about the importance of a movie now, we ask about its director rather than its originator because the aura of the movie is tied to its capacity to satisfy public opinion to the same extent or more than the depth of its thought.

When a literary work is adapted to the screen, the adaptation attempts to hybridize the original in order to satisfy the audience’s hunger. This work is also exposed to many effects, such as montage, slow motion, and other features. As a result, it is not the natural occurrence itself that impacts the recipient, but rather the accompanying song, the focus of the lens, and other factors. Thus, the actor’s originality is not the foundation, and abstract performance is only a means to an end. Returning to the notion of the aura, does it appear in the literary work, the cinematic adaptation, or the technique? The answer is technique.

Art as a social practice could be said to have turned into a commodity, the creation of which is shared by producers in order to be sold in the market for a profit. As a result, the dominating creative ‘trend’ drives the artist to create in accordance with the chronological and spatially context of public perception. To be able to breathe, the artist must quicken their progressive swiftness.

Art has evolved from an individual event to a community event as a result of Mechanical Reproduction and the rise of social media. And, given that contemporary methods are not only capable of bringing the distant together, but also of uniting collective interest in accordance with the current wave or “trend,” it should be taken into consideration that the trending process is not without risk, since it is influenced by marketing variables and algorithms guided by professionals. As a result, the public taste is influenced by marketing.