A passage in the reading that really stood out to me was passage 2. In the passage, Walter Benjamin argues that all art has aura and the reproduction of the said art makes it lose its aura. I personally disagree with this idea and how he defines โaura.โ Benjamin relates aura to originality and the historical context but I think aura is the impact it has on the audience. People would only want to replicate a certain artwork because they felt something from the art and share the experience with other people. Just because something is easily accessible doesnโt necessarily mean that the impact the art has would be gone or diminished. Restricting the amount of people who can see a specific artwork inhibits the full potential the artwork could have. All the popular paintings, for example, the Mona Lisa, that painting, in my opinion, still has a lot of aura because it has withstood the test of time and it has also been replicated digitally countless times. According to Benjamin, the Mona Lisa would have lost aura. Replication of art wouldnโt diminish it, in fact, it would only enhance the meaning and extend the influence. By being easily accessible to more people, the art reaches a broader audience and can make new interpretations or even inspire new creations. Benjaminโs idea of cult value is also a little problematic. In a capitalistic society, the artworks with the most aura would most likely be blocked behind an expensive fee or very inaccessible for people who donโt live near. Also, this would make the idea of aura related to wealth and power instead of the art piece itself. Overall, Benjaminโs idea of aura supports the idea of limiting who gets to experience art meaningfully which risks enforcing elitism and igores how powerful, meaning, and revolutionary reproduced art can be