This reading was surely difficult to comprehend at first glance. In the beginning, I was definitely questioning the purpose of the reading and slightly confused as to the main point of it, though eventually it clicked and I agree with many of his points. It’s interesting too because this was written so long ago yet the main premise still remains so true. I did pay close attention to what he was saying about aura and I did find it very interesting. Benjamin defines aura as the “unique presence of a work of art in time and space-” which if you did not already have an idea of the meaning of aura I think that definition can be confusing. Though his ideas behind art losing its aura due to mass production and assimilation is very true. He recognizes the importance of cultural value and a sense of uniqueness that makes art so valuable and attractive. This is still true to this day. I think I relate this idea to how forms of art, like music and movies, are seen as way better when they’re not as popular or famous. People tend to subconsciously believe that something is better when it’s not as popular. This translates to the idea that something with less popularity has better aura and the mass production behind popular forms of art ruins that aura. I do agree though I will say when something is good, it is just objectively good, despite how popular it is. The idea of mass production though and accessibility diminishing a product’s aura I do agree with. The easier something is to get your hands on, the less value it does have. Whether that be money wise or in this case, aura wise too. Benjamin definitely discussed topics that are even relevant to this day and it makes me wonder if art will forever hold the same ideas or will these beliefs evolve?