Benjamin's Lens

Opposition Viewed through a Lens
In his 1936 essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Walter Benjamin seemingly draws a parallel with Platonic thought in his discussion of artistic reproduction's destruction of aura. Benjamin argues that the mechanical reproducibility of an image, with regards specifically toward the development of a photograph or film, causes the unique authenticity of the original image to deteriorate. According to Benjamin, a mechanical reproduction of a work cannot claim to be the actual work because it lacks the former's "presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be" (Benjamin, 3). Because the reproduction lacks the original's uniqueness, a mechanically reproduced

According to Aristotle, tragedy reached its most natural form as a result of changes people introduced to its original form. As he traces the development of the genre of tragedy from its origin based in improvisation, Aristotle finds that "tragedy was greatly enhanced as people developed each new aspect of it that came to light" (Aristotle, 8). The improvement of tragedy from its original state, in Aristotle's view, resulted from democratizing the genre rather than through imposing strict restrictions on its exposure to people. In the end, Aristotle finds the art form that man's tendencies naturally gravitate toward to be the form that art should be. With regards to determining the verse form of tragedy, Aristotle considers the notion that "when speech was introduced nature itself found the appropriate form of verse, iambic being the verse-form closest to speech" (Aristotle, 8). Art assumes its natural state – as well as the state it should embody – when it becomes subject to the directions and opinions of a great number of people. In accordance with Benjamin, Aristotle suggests that art attains greater meaning and functions through its exposure to the masses. Art, in Aristotle's view, becomes enhanced as it earns exhibition

Plato does not believe art can fully reveal anything new about a physical construct or behavior. In Plato's view, an artist "can paint us a cobbler, a carpenter, or any other craftsman, even though he knows nothing about these crafts" (Plato, 301). An artist cannot be considered a true maker of an object because he does not understand the said object. Plato produces an even greater conflict with Benjamin's theory when he presents the idea that only the person who creates the work truly understands its form. Plato posits that the god who creates the real couch stands as the only entity who truly understands the form of the couch because the god hopes "to be the real maker of the real couch and not just some particular maker of some particular couch, [and] naturally developed the one that is in its nature unique" (Plato, 300). Unlike Benjamin, Plato believes that someone who walks would necessarily know what his posture is at the very moment he takes a step; an artist who seeks to depict someone who walks would not and could not understand the latter's posture. Plato's argument that imitation of reality always proves inferior to reality lies inconsistent with Benjamin's discussion of cinema as a useful reflection of the