BenjaminWalter Benjamin’s polemic article contains notable contrasts between its short length and the numerous issues raised. Possible reasons attached to these characteristics emanate not only to the circumstances leading to the writing of the article, but also it might be related to the epigrammatic style of a philosopher. In this light, it will be essential to cover several aspects of the article, which include the analysis of the context of its production, the questioning of the politicization of art, and the development of impression. Benjamin theorizes that the techniques used in the reproduction of art are a substitution of the plurality of different copies that offer the art’s unique existence (3). Benjamin indicates that works of art are reproducible, and have been done in history (Benjamin 2). An example that he uses is the idea of the procedures used in founding as well as stamping in ancient Greece such as etching and engraving and the birth of lithography during the nineteenth century. However, he posits that the mechanical reproduction of works of art, which originates from the advancement of capitalism in his era, is a representation of something novel (Benjamin 9). The originality of the artistic reproduction, which includes film and photography, should be analyzed in detail. In this regard, there is a possibility of arguing that the new art concept makes the reproduction of the same as something that cannot be analyzed without the inclusion of political views.A reaction to the need to introduce political analyses could be attached to the author’s personal political motivations. The motivations are set forth from the beginning of the essay. For instance, there is connection between the process of copying and the distribution of different artwork, as well as the mass movements that define the context of the artifacts. For this reason, a person could argue that Benjamin’s context is both political and historical. As could be derived from the preface of the essay, themes of proletariat art are essential tools for developing artistic tendencies under particular conditions since they can be seen as working against the utilization of conventional aesthetic provisions. However, the political terminologies used when introducing the aspect of classless society provide clarity regarding the author’s objective, which is blocking the introduction of aesthetics to political concepts. On the other hand, it is possible to view the article as a political manifesto. This view accounts for the idea that manifestos are considered as urgent documents, which is portrayed by the simplicity of the different passages from Benjamin’s essay. However, when an individual acknowledges that another framing of the article is essential, the enhancements of different arguments can be made to come up in new light. In this case, the view should not only based on the historical and political contexts since it reveals that the essay has a political agenda. Even though Benjamin emphasizes on the role of mechanical reproduction, and argument could be raised to indicate that he does not portray the autonomy of an artist when creating his art. On the other hand, regardless of the increasing demand for revolutionary art, the literary techniques to be used in the different artistic pieces should awaken critiques from the audience. An assessment of Benjamin’s writing indicates that his idea does not refute the consideration of photography as more revolutionary that other forms of art, but the originality of photography contains the reduction of aura, consequently disclosing novel artistic possibilities. Conversely, one can mention that Benjamin drew hasty conclusions to explain the use of the new artistic media. Even though people might accept film as a new form of art, they might not hold the view regarding the politicization of this form of art as provided for by Benjamin. The ideas he introduces that relate to politics in film are referenced to the claim of aesthetics. From his thesis, it is possible to argue that he refers to art as something that is not only for entertainment. The arguments presented in the essay would influence an individual to posit that original work is no longer authoritative. This position might be brought forth by the idea that reproductions became independent to original work. Conversely, copies of the art can ensure that the original piece remain out of reach. However, the essay explicitly reveals that the reproductions reactivate objects of art. Through the reproduction of art, the objects of art in the reproductions are disconnected from the field of tradition. However, Benjamin does not support previous dependence of ritual to increase the opportunity of exhibition during his time (Benjamin 5). From this opposition, it is clear that the evaluation of the process of liquidating aura is positive. The possibility of public participation in commenting on works of art prepares them to new times for art. For instance, the negative theology that is characteristic of pure art can be used to implement their social function or their categorizations based on their subject matter. These elements can be used to introduce the idea that the criterion for the authenticity of art can cease to be applied to the production and function of art. The author argues, “instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics” (5). Still based on the idea of introducing the spectator, Benjamin makes comparisons between photography and film with painting and theatre to reveal that they can be indispensable in the demystification of art. For example, a person could view film as a form of art that encourages critical attitudes in the audience that theatre does. Benjamin uses two circumstances to reveal the beneficial consequences of the crumble of aura in art. The decay does not occur automatically. Instead, one of the circumstances that causes it would be related to the desire of the people to change their perception in terms of the realization of the “sense of universal equality of things” (Benjamin 4). The other circumstance that causes the decay relates to the need for the people in the contemporary world to adjust to the reality of things. Based on the theory of sensibility, it will not be possible for the people to achieve this. The achievement cannot be possible even through film, as long as capital sets the trend of promoting revolutionary criticism of the traditional artistic concepts. This reasoning falls in line with the attempt to use politics in the aesthetics of art. Benjamin’s position on cinema as the art of the masses could be attached to the Marxist notion of politics. However, this perspective could be used to indicate that it does not favor his approach due to the opposition between aesthetics in politics and the politicization of art. The perspective seemingly reduces communist and fascist projects (Benjamin 15). The rigidity of his opposition, in relation to the presupposition of providing the masses with the right to express themselves and giving them the right to alter property relations are supposedly abstract. One of the reasons that could be used to indicate why Benjamin cannot overcome the opposition existing in the communist politicization of art and the fascist aesthetical view of politics is the insufficiency recorded when talking about the issue. His categorizations do not imply that he dismisses the creativity of an artist based on politics; neither do they praise the reproduction of art. In spite of the presented arguments, the author takes note of the idea that the medium used does not provide an assurance of the politicization of art. He also takes note of the fact that a considerable number of artists still find safe haven in the I’ art pour I ‘art doctrine that neutralizes the power of art over individuals. He consequently does not ignore the provision that the audience is seduced by the novel auras. After all, the aspect of cult value cannot be applied without resistance (Benjamin 5). Even though the contemporary society considers art as a nominal concept that alters after a particular period, it is possible to argue that there must be people that consider art beyond that. For instance, an aura does not consider the foundation of art as a ritual. The author’s point of departure is the aesthetic definition by Paul Valery. This definition recognizes works of art in the sense that no mode of behavior suggested by it could be exhaustive. Instead, art could be considered as a representation of something inexhaustible. Before the era of mechanical reproduction, art only evoked sense impressions in individuals, which presumably disappeared with the introduction of photography. His perspective or art is a revelation that he admits to the possibility of the existence of a different type of aura. He also welcomes the idea that a spectator is critical to the notion of artistic representation. These provisions are essential for understanding the fundamental approach of aesthetic since the author’s primary concept of art is attached to the creation of different auras in history. In this light, an individual could posit that film provides individuals with the best medium to induce an alteration in property relations.