The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, wrote by Walter Benjamin

How do the ideas from Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" apply to contemporary digital media?

In the article - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin thinks that modern digital media as he discusses the rise of new technologies affecting the evolution of art throughout history.

In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new. Historically, it advanced intermittently and in leaps at long intervals, but with accelerated intensity. The Greeks knew only two procedures of technically reproducing works of art: founding and stamping. Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins were the only art works which they could produce in quantity. All others were unique and could not be mechanically reproduced.

There was a time when "Art" was made by artists who were skilled professionals. Now that anyone with a computer can create things digitally (music, images, videos, etc), what does that mean for "art"?

Anyone can create digital things with computer today. How to define art? Art is "The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance". The definition states that the digital media that everyone can create can be considered art. However, Walter Benjamin has different opinion: The concept of aura which was proposed above with reference to historical objects may usefully be illustrated with reference to the aura of natural ones. We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be. When someone paints a picture or creates a sculpture, the object and everything that it represents is in a whole, "art". When that picture is copied and reproduced from a machine or that sculpture is replicated it loses some of its artistic appeal. The original objects themselves are "art", because someone created them with their bare hands from their own feelings and emotions. When it is reproduced it loses that, it loses its aura. The painting or sculpture now embodies the beauty of piece, but loses the human aspect.

Is a photoshopped image "authentic"?

The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated. This holds not only for the art work but also, for instance, for a landscape which passes in review before the spectator in a movie. In the case of the art object, a most sensitive nucleus – namely, its authenticity – is interfered with whereas no natural object is vulnerable on that score. The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced.

Do digital "things" have an "aura" (in Benjamin's terms)?

In Benjamin’s opinion, digital “things” are lacking in an “aura” as “... the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.” Digital things and reproduced things lack aura as the copies are not made within the context of the original therefore draining the entity of its “aura”.