Is art really art?

Walter Benjamin states in his "Art in the age of mechanical reproduction";

"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." “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.”

In the age of digital manipulation it comes as no surprise that we can question the authenticity of a work of art. Benjamin considers the idea of an artwork having an ‘aura’ – “We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be. If, while resting on a summer afternoon, you follow with your eyes a mountain range on the horizon or a branch which casts its shadow over you, you experience the aura of those mountains, of that branch. This image makes it easy to comprehend the social bases of the contemporary decay of the aura. It rests on two circumstances, both of which are related to the increasing significance of the masses in contemporary life.

Namely, the desire of contemporary masses to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction. Unmistakably, reproduction as offered by picture magazines and newsreels differs from the image seen by the unarmed eye. Uniqueness and permanence are as closely linked in the latter as are transitoriness and reproducibility in the former. To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose “sense of the universal equality of things” has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction. Thus is manifested in the field of perception what in the theoretical sphere is noticeable in the increasing importance of statistics. The adjustment of reality to the masses and of the masses to reality is a process of unlimited scope, as much for thinking as for perception.” – and by manipulating or reproducing a piece of art it is safe to say that the aura of the piece is lost or diminished. Everyday we see magazines and advertisements with beautiful, ‘perfect’ models pasted all over. Society observes these “people” with the desire to obtain their perfect appearance. What most don’t know or even more alarmingly, do know is that these images have been airbrushed, photoshopped, cut, pasted, and altered. The original aura of these people and the raw photo that has captured their unique beauty for a millisecond has been changed and lost. Beauty is in imperfection however, by digitally manipulating an image we are trying to create beauty in perfection which is seemingly impossible to obtain in reality.

Similarly, when composing a piece of music- a piece of art – with raw instruments and genuine voices there is no doubt that the notes and pitch will not be perfect; this imperfection is the beauty in the music. With the ability to digitally alter a composition it again diminishes the aura of the art; the music. Someone with an amazing voice or an amazing instrumental talent used to be deemed “talented”. Nowadays, if someone has the ability to digitally create music, they are talented. You don’t even need to be able to sing or play an instrument because a computer can compose and alter the music to perfection. Each note is perfect. The pitch is always right. Yes, someone is talented to be able to compose such a perfect sound on a computer; that is skill. The ‘aura’ of the musicians however is lost, or it never really existed.

I think that raw digital art – composition of raw colours, effects and shapes – can in some sense have an ‘aura’ as the ‘artist’ has put artistic thought into the creation of the digital piece. When reproducing and altering a piece of art however, I believe the ‘aura’ is lost.