On reading an abridged version of "the work of art in an age of Mechanical Reproduction"

I just finished reading a shortened, abridged version of Walter Benjamin's 1935 Essay - "The work of art in an age of Mechanical Reproduction." It's a wonderful essay, and I encourage anyone who can to read it.

Some of the things I took away from the essay were:
1. Art, unlike in the old days was made for ritualistic/spiritual reasons, and wasn't necessarily made for "art's sake." The mechanical reproduction of art allows for, and destroys the connection between the original use of the piece of art, and how we use it today. We don't necessarily take the same meaning out of ancient Greek art as the ancient Greeks.

2. The mechanical reproduction of art destroys authenticity or "aura." Because the event of viewing a piece of artwork is no longer singular, because you can buy a picture of the Mona Lisa anywhere, it destroys whatever value there was in the authenticity or aura in that piece of art. Insofar as those pieces of art are connected to the traditional, their meaning seems to change.

3. Fascism is bad. If someone wants to go more in depth on that front, I'd be interested.

Anytime something can be reproduced on a mass level, I think it has the possibility to destroy whatever meaning or value there was in the original art. It also is a way of comparing. You can have 1000 copies of the Mona Lisa and 1000 copies of a Thomas Kinkade. In this light, because anything can be reproduced so easily, it seems to equate the things and put them on the same level, when, perhaps they shouldn't be.

I would argue that people actually have a sense of history and aesthetics and they know, at least in some part, that Michelangelo is better than a cheap watercolor. I think giving people access to works of art that they wouldn't have otherwise - if they couldn't get to the work of art - but it also creates a reverences for the original object. Because of the mechanical reproduction of art, we know that the Mona Lisa has some sort of meaning. If we were to see the this painting in person, it would be a revered thing and it would engender an aesthetic if not emotional response from us. These pieces of art become things to be seen - and the actual object, the authentic object can retain it's aura because people know, to some degree, it's value. I don't think anyone actually mistakes a reproduction for the real thing, and it becomes an event to go out and see the real thing in person. Works of art become famous. They are important. Someone might not know about them otherwise, and if they didn't have a particular sense for art, they might not notice them the way they're supposed to be noticed. Without historical context, the David is just a statue, but it is people who give it meaning. While the context is different from the original context and perhaps we don't get the same meaning we might get out of these pieces of art as we would if were there when they were created (the David is no longer representative of a culture) they still do have some context and meaning and the thing itself, while not having cultural meaning, does represent something that is beautiful and therefore perfect. It's not like these famous works of art don't tell a story or have their own reasons for why they look the way they do. The David's ability to represent a figure at the moment before a great event (or after I forget) and insofar as it represents a reinvigorated sense of the human body is something that is always cool.

Don't let the bed drugs fright

-cjfer-