We need to talk, Benjamin you sly dog!

When Benjamin referes to the "aura" of a piece of artwork, he is describing the effects of the process of removing a piece from the domain of tradition by reproducing it. So in fact the aura is the sense of tradition and authenticity that a piece of art has. Once it is reproduced it loses this aura.

The realm of music and music production is an area in which we can see great leaps forward in reproduction. Orignally one would have to go to see a musician play live, or later listen to the radio or buy a floppy, highly breakable "45 from a record shop if they wanted to hear the latest art. But now it has all changed, music is accesible at the click of a mouse ( both illegally and legally) Artists have a much greater access to their audience. Is this a bad thing for art? Sure it may have lost the intimacy and authenticity of been right there at one unqiue performance, but now musicians have a way of pushing their art to a greater amount of people.

I don't think this is entirely bad for art. There is still a certain area for art that is painted, that is created by hand and still retains some sort of "aura". But this aura does not apply to digital art forms, even less than it did to print, photographs and the other aura-less art forms that Benjamin described. The digital age not only allows for the reproduction of art, but for this reproduction to be performed by almost anyone with access to a computer and some photoshopping programs. Skilled proffesionals do still have a market though, sure by Benjamins reasons we should look at something created digitally as being aura-less, but why cannot we not see it as being original under a completely new set of rules?

A photoshopped photo would not be considered authentic. It is a digital representation of a piece of art that is being tampered with, altered from it's original authentic state, plucked from the very domain that made it a traditional piece of art.

So it can be seen quite clearly that digital "things" would not have an aura in Benjamins terms, in that they are reproductions of an original piece, even more so they are based on a set of templates that are based on reality. But does this make them products of the domain of the unskilled? Methinks not. There is still alot of skill required in digital arts. Sure everyone can use the technologies, but they doesn't mean they use them well, just like even though I can go out and start painting, I might not be very good at it. Interesting.

GS: same as below.