In regard to the Benjamin piece is fairly unbiased in its presentation, which I enjoyed about the reading. In section II, I agree that each piece of art, especially in the context of lithography techniques, has its own unique heritage that a copy cannot replicate (such as the example the author uses of damage acquired over the years), but I do not think that makes a copy any less special, because will a copy not eventually accumulate its own damage? I think we cannot dismiss the significance of something just because it is a replication. That would be the same ignorance people have when dismissing sampling in hip hop, or all electronic music.
The Debord reading I found very similar to the reading “Paying Attention”. Both these readings seem concerned with what will be “attention grabbing” or “causing a spectacle”. This comes up often in our readings and I think the “spectacle” is a topic that is particularly interesting to artists because of arts inherent commentary on society. The quote about how “the spectacle brings together and explains a wide range of apparently disparate phenomena” reminded me a lot of the function of art itself in our society. Art itself can be seen as Debord’s “spectacle” because of how it ties together many different aspects of human life, also Debord never exactly says what “the spectacle” is leaving it open to interpretation, which is why I believe the spectacle to be artistic expression.