"Readers hoping that Benjamin's explanation that the aura of a work of art is "that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction"[18] will encounter a problem when faced with crowds queuing to see the Mona Lisa."
Just to stop for a moment and take this line, I cannot understand the argument made here. The mass of queued individuals waiting to catch a glimpse (or more importantly a quick photo with a camera-phone) of an object under glass, cordoned off by rope and guards, renders Benjamin's claim untenable? The scene, common before many other works of such fame, speaks more to the fetishism of the object than a regard for its authenticity. It reminds me of Benjamin's anecdote about his brother (I believe it is in his correspondence with Adorno. I cannot remember nor locate it after some brief searching) proclaiming after visiting various towns when they were younger "now we can say we have been there." As it goes, Benjamin never forgot his brother's comment, condensing the experience to a check on a list. The image of crowds snapping pictures and pushing past one another to see an iconic painting bespeaks to the dissipation of its aura, in Benjaminian terms even, than to its preservation. In considering plausible explanations of this dissipation of its presence over its fetish-value, drawing crowds on the weight of its fame alone, the endless reproduction of painting's image is certainly not the least convincing. It is not aura, but "exhibition value" that fills the queue. Regardless of how convincing Benjamin's concept is, I have always read his aura as trying to capture a commanding presence of an object that influences those around it, where "aura" inflects a certain vitality to the object, it being more than an object, yet necessarily unseen. Benjamin's mysticism seems obtrusive for some readers, but the key to the thought is its underlining of an auratic object's particularity, place, and presence--being a thing in this space at this time. Unless I am misremembering the essay, which I am inclined now to reread completely, passed photography, he is more interested in film and its special relation to his concept of the aura. Film is aura-less. And the absence of aura is not due to its lack of an "original". Beyond the expounding of his concept of authenticity however, is his defense of film and the observational character of the essay. Davis suggests, "Jerome Stolnitz argued that the growth of mass society explained the "apparent demise of really high art" better than Benjamin's suggestion of the waning of the aura." But unfortunately this statement misses the arc of Benjamin's essay. His move from cult value and aura to exhibition value of the photograph, then mass appeal of film, is not simply another narrative of degradation. Benjamin was interested in the transformative capability of film, but was cautioning against its exploitation, most obviously by fascism, and by its major actualization as a form of mass distraction. I'll be rereading the essay now... -Brian -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Authenticity and Aura I can't find the 1937 version of the essy on the web yet-but i did find this: http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=493 A stroll round the Louvre after reading Benjamin. I can hear derek's claws scrabbling towards it now-his remarks, freshly worded and properly backed up, are indicated here. Kate Sullivan ************** Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
