I was struck by Benjamin’s statement that “In principle, a work of art has always been reproducible. Manually or perhaps mechanically, you could produce copies of statues or paintings. What is new in our time is the technological means of reproduction, and above all, the possibility of massive quantities of copies.” In this passage, Benjamin reminds us that artists and craftspeople have long made replicas, but what really changes things is modern technology. He points out that today we can make endless identical prints, casts, or recordings quickly and cheaply. The difference between an old‐fashioned copy and a modern reproduction isn’t just how it’s made, but how many copies you can make and who can see them. This shift from a few hand‐made replicas to mass production affects how we value and experience art. To me, this idea shows how technology can both spread and weaken culture. On one hand, more people get to enjoy great works because they can buy posters, watch films, or listen to recorded music. It’s exciting that art is available to everyone, not just to the rich or to museum visitors. On the other hand, something special is lost when art becomes a product churned out by machines. It’s like eating fast food instead of a home‐cooked meal; it fills you up but doesn’t taste quite as meaningful. Benjamin’s passage makes me think about my own relationship with art and technology. When I stream a movie or share a meme online, I’m part of this mass reproduction culture. But I also wonder if I’m missing out by never seeing the original painting in person or hearing a live orchestra. His words challenge me to find balance: enjoy the convenience of digital art, but also look for ways to keep and value the unique qualities of originals. Finally, Benjamin asks us to consider: how can we use technology to share art widely without losing its depth and meaning? That question still feels important today as we deal with social media, virtual galleries, and online classes.