The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

In Walter Benjamin's article "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", he discusses his views on modern artistry and the ways in which he believes mechanical reproduction is killing the "aura" of art. He defines an aura as;

"We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be."

What he means by this is that he believes that an original viewing or idea of an art is the aura of the piece, but the reproduction of this idea loses its aura. For example, he explains that if you are gazing up at a mountain range, you are experiencing the aura of those mountains. But if you photograph them, and mass produce them for an audience, the picture lacks the aura, or the original feeling the artist felt when he photographed them.

While I do identify with what Benjamin is saying, I also think his argument has flaws. While perhaps what he perceives as the original aura is lost, he does not acknowledge that photographers and the like manipulate their art on purpose to create their own aura. A photographer who photographs that mountain is going to go home and manipulate that picture on many different light scales and dark room settings, to manipulate the photograph into an aura of its own, what he, the artist, wants viewers to see when they look at his art.

Mass production of art may not be exactly as the original, and in some artistry fields I feel like this could have the piece lose an aura, as some artists, such as painters and sculptors, created their original piece to be the piece that is viewed. But other artists, such as movie directors and photographers, created their art to be mass produced, and much of the art of their piece is found in the way they manipulate it for audiences. All art is up for interpretation from the audiences, even original paintings and sculptures can be "misunderstood" by audiences, so photographs and movie scenes being "misunderstood" is not a valid argument for loss of an aura. I believe that if the artist created a piece to be mass produced and manipulated, that its aura lies in the production, and is not lost. I believe an artist decides his own aura of his piece, and if he decides it should be a mass produced aura, I think that the art does retain its aura.