Benjamin writes about the "aura" or basic essence that an object or piece of art carries. With the mechanical reproduction of art, he refers to a loss or aura. As we discussed in class though, Benjamin didn't necessarily view this as a bad thing since creativity, genius, and the prestige connected with high end art could be utilized for the Fascist cause.
After reading Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," I couldn't help but see connections to popular culture, particularly themes the permeate the novels of science fiction writer Philip K. Dick. This connection is most noticeable when it comes to the discussion on authenticity. Benjamin discusses film and photography's impact on art, and how the original is no longer important once quality replicas of the original can be produced on a large scale. While some of the basic essence of an object is lost with replication, the replicas do in fact get infused with what we might call the "mirror image equivalent" of aura, which is then projected on the masses.
Philip K. Dick's novel, "The Man in the High Castle" strikes a similar cord when the characters examine counterfeit objects and note that their value doesn't so much lie in their authenticity as the story and history attached to that given object. It doesn't matter if it's real, it just matters that the people think it holds importance and historical significance.
Here are two short passages from the book that tie in with this topic of authenticity and aura. Keep in mind that it is science fiction.
“Listen. One of these two Zippo lighters was in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s pocket when he was assassinated. And one wasn’t. One has historicity, a hell lot of it. As much as any object ever had. And one has nothing, can you feel it?” He nudged her, “You can’t. You can’t tell which is which. There is no ‘mystical plasmic presence,’ no ‘aura’ around it.”
" Its all a big racket; they are playing it on themselves. I mean, a gun goes through a famous battle, like the Meuse-Argonne, and it's the same as if hadn't, unless you know. It's in here." He tapped his head. "in the mind, not the gun..." (Dick, p. 57).
So if authenticity doesn't matter and the aura is "in the mind of the beholder," then do we even need the original? What do you guys think? Do films, photographs, recordings of a live musical performance successfully convey the original's aura to you? I'd love to hear your thoughts, as well as reactions to other parts of the blog linked above.
