Taking the train one afternoon, I came across a sign glued on to the doors of the train. It was warning riders not to lean on the doors. What captured my attention about this particular image was the fact that it depicted a person leaning on the doors while holding a cell phone. This triggered a spiraling thought process which questioned how far we've integrated technology into our lives to the point that it becomes an extension of ourselves. In truth, how many of us can leave home without our cell phones? To provide some background on this thought process, I will discuss some important points from Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." What’s captivating about this essay is the overall analytical approach he used to understand the effects of mechanical reproduction on a work of art. Although mass reproduction has led to the technological world we know today, in what way does it affect our interpretation and consumption of art but what’s more, how does this affect artistic mediums and our ability to adapt and evolve from these changes?

There are several factors one must understand from Benjamin's writing; the concept of authenticity, the aura and the acceptance of its decay in human perception by the masses. Technical reproduction of all art became possible around the 1900s and it led to mass reproduction of art to the public. Benjamin argues that mechanical reproduction had repercussions, not only did it create its own artistic process, it also had an impact on traditional form. The impact is apparent in photography when taking into consideration the trajectory of its evolution to its integration in our phones. This allows for the convenient and instant capturing of images at the user’s disposal. Photography is not the only medium affected by mechanical reproduction, it can apply to all mediums including movies and music. It is common practice to use our phones or technological device on a daily basis whether it’s to consume or as artists, to make art. Consequently, this has changed our patterns of consumption so much so that it continues to evolve in ways we had not thought possible.

An important point brought forth in Benjamin’s writing was the concept of authenticity. He argues that reproductions of a work of art are not able to reproduce certain elements of the original such as "its presence in time and space" because in an original, you can trace its history through "chemical and physical analyses." He mentions there are two reasons “the presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” First, the reproduction of the original, such as the object being captured on film, is independent from the manual reproduction and second, the manual reproduction can be mass produced to be in places the original can't. According to Benjamin, mechanical reproduction of a work of art always depreciates in quality from the original no matter how precise it may be and it’s not only the work of art which suffers but also the authenticity of the actual object. This is apparent in today’s use of social media. When taking a picture and posting it on Instagram, how far off is it from the original object? How does the quality of a cell phone camera, the size restrictions imposed by the internet, or the addition of filters affect our interpretation of it? This difference is categorized as the aura of the work. If we argue that it is the nature of the aura to depreciate because mechanical reproduction breaks away from tradition, Benjamin states that it’s a “symptomatic process” and a new existence is created by the multiple copies meeting the viewer “or listener in his own particular situation” because “it reactivates the object being reproduced.” Furthermore, the actual object loses its context through reproduction and becomes something else altogether.

Benjamin states that the willingness to accept the decay of the aura is attributed to human perception by the masses for the reason that it is influenced not only by nature but also by history. He further states that there’s a desire to “bring things closer spatially and humanly” and because of this, the masses readily accept the reproduction, however, this acceptance is merely an “adjustment of reality.” If we accept what we see from a reproduction at face value, can this be a contributing reason for the potential depreciation of art in our culture? According to the essay, the unique value of art is based on ritual because it makes it authentic; however, the decline of ritual was later substituted by the means of reproduction which consequently gave rise to the notion of “art for art’s sake.” Moreover, it states that the age of mechanical reproduction must do justice to its liberations from ritual but that maintaining the criteria of authenticity is important because if not, it would take practice in politics. Consequently, this places a lot of emphasis on the zeitgeist of contemporary society and its responsibility on the evolution of art as a whole.

The sign on the train illustrating an individual holding a cellphone reveals something very important about the society we live in. Our phones have become an integral part of our daily lives, an extension of ourselves and how we manage life as well as interact with the world. As we browse through favorite images of artworks on the internet, follow artists on social media, watch a new television series on Netflix, or listen to our favorite band's new album in MP3 format, we must question and ask ourselves if it would be possible to imagine in what way the reproduction is different to the original and exactly how much are we adjusting reality to accept the loss in quality and context? Could technical process be different today had we not accepted the decay of the aura or was it inevitable in the age mechanical reproduction? If the notion of “Art for art’s sake” substituted ritual in artistic process, is it fair to say that art has become based on politics given its evolution into contemporary thought and if so, can we liberate it in the age of mechanical reproduction? Furthermore, technology has allowed us to share art across barriers of oceans but it has also changed the way we consume and make art. Questioning current patterns and behavior in our culture with regards to art is critical for its development and evolution. Moreover, we must continue to explore ideas on how this affects our interpretation of the artwork itself but more importantly, how does our perception as a society influence the evolution of artistic technical process as well.