1. Can there ever really be a true replica because of an artworks "unique existence in time and space"?

2. Does the reproduction of an object destroy the significance of the original?

I have a few problems with Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" because of the way he goes back and forth between his ideas about the way film concerns art. He says that it's not art for a number of reasons but then counters that with reasons that film is art. I also don't agree with his idea that because the "masses" are crossing the line between artist and audience, writer and reader, there is some sort of "crisis." Why is there a problem if more people want to create art? Shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to do this? If there is more art in the world then I don't see the problem. Also, if reproduction is bringing more art to people in the world then what is the problem there? A person can't experience art just became the original piece is not in front of them? I think mechanical reproduction has done a lot of wonderful things for the world of art; it has brought art to people and places that wouldn't normally have access to it.

1. The author says that with photography, the first process of reproduction, art "sensed the approaching crisis." Why is this a crisis if it gives almost anyone the ability to experience art? Yes, it's different than seeing it in person, but does that mean that only a person that has the ability to physically visit a work of art should see that work? And if that is true then does he only want art available for the bourgeoisie since they would be the only ones able to view these works without reproductions?

2. Does Benjamin think film is a work of art? He goes back and forth in that he says that film actors don't have an aura and that it has no cult value but then he also says that film offers a more significant reality than painting "...precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art." Does he think that film could be a work of art but film actors can't?

Walter Benjamin worte this in 1935, when he thought the "new" technology affected the place of art in the society. However, he had nothing on the techonology that we have today. Do you think that he would still hold the same position even with the advanced technology (e.i. digital reproduction)?
Do YOU agree with his whole argument that certain mechanical reproduced art loses its authenticity? After all,,,, it does feel a whole lot different when we actually go to galleries to see artwork than seeing them in magazines, internet, etc.

The World of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Is film really the only form of art that can be duplicated without lossing its authentcity because one can experience this form in both time and space? Can't a duplicate of a painting do the same?

Does this article really apply to our modern day way of thinking? For example I don't know if I agree with the quote, "The uniquiness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition.