I Talk Way Too Much About Disney- BoredCaitlin 9/18

Thinking about Benjamin’s piece in class on Thursday has led me to ask if “mechanical reproduction” of a work devalues its authenticity. After all, Benjamin writes, “the presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (39). I understand what he’s saying, but I’m not sure if I entirely agree. In some cases, I can easily agree to this assertion. For example, I usually don’t like to judge theme park attractions until I get to see them in person. I’ve seen plenty of pictures of Tokyo Disneyland and have heard many first-hand reports of how wonderful it is. It’s often said to be the best of Disney’s theme parks. However, I don’t feel I can attest to that statement, because I haven’t been there to see it myself.

Their version of the Main Street Electrical Parade though... I need that in my life.

 It’s one thing to look at pictures of a theme park online. It’s something entirely different to see it in person and experience it for yourself. I feel similarly about paintings. When you see a painting in person, it’s easier to appreciate textures and smaller details. One simply doesn’t get that appreciation just looking at a picture of a painting. But on the other hand, Benjamin writes “even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be” (38). If that’s the case, than wouldn’t the simple passage of time devalue a work’s authenticity? Audiences of today look at Disney’s Snow White differently than audiences of 1937. Does that make the work any less “real” or authentic? The aura certainly changes, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Time has a way of changing things.