Walter Benjamin’s interest in art and its evolution in the fast-changing society he was living in during the events of pre-WWII escalation made him thoroughly contemplate the state of art and its ability to cope and adapt to the ever-evolving notion of mass production. Benjamin asks the quintessential question, how does mass reproduction affect art?. In order to answer that question, Benjamin uses the term “Aura” to describe the physical and situational state of an art piece in a certain space and time. Aura is something that guarantees Authenticity and grants the art piece its entire value. Aura is an ensemble of historical and situational background workings that give the art piece its “one-timeness”. Benjamin argues the mass reproduction of art diminishes and drains it from its aura from the art itself, it’s not the same piece of art anymore, it’s evolved. If we are to apply this reasoning to our current state of the art it would be easier for us to understand what Benjamin meant by his notion of Aura and Authenticity. How long has it been since we last witnessed a single piece of art that holds a monumental level of “One-Timeness” and Panache which gave it what we could call “Iconicness”?.
The notion of Aura has certainly changed since the time Benjamin wrote this famous essay, but the interpretation of art has stayed the same. While benjamin thinks aura diminished the more art gets reproduced, he does make an effort to highlight what replaces it. He states that while aura was dependant on the place and time the art was created in, reproduction makes it easier for the art to be appreciated by a larger number of people and it gives. Reproducible art is made with its potential for exhibition in mind. Art may lose its aura but it gains a specific political imprint that works as the art’s synthetic aura. Platforms such as Instagram nowadays certainly exhibit such features as its main reason of existence is not to be appreciated by to be distributed to the maximum amount of people.
One key aspect that changed in art between its unique limited production and its current communal massively reproduced state is the sense of individuality it had and the feeling of “cultishness” and community engagement it has now. The question that poses itself here is, is this change good or bad ?. In my opinion, the answer to this question is subjective. Because the discussion of what made art good or bad is a synchronic discussion. What made art good in the middle ages is not what makes art good in our time, the difference in criteria and requirements for evaluation is different from time to time and this difference is determined by political, social, and economic changes that happen in that specific period.
I agree art from the middle ages has changed since now. There are many differences to what is considered good art in our times.