Art in the age of Mechanical reproduction

This writing has been discussed in some form or another in many of my art classes, but I had never actually read it. This particular topic is of interest for me regarding my own photography and how digital reproduction affects my work.
As touched on in class, I am quite on the fence about this whole thing. The issues for me stem from the benefits of education, and Benjamin’s idea of the lost aura of artwork. For the most part, I am strictly speaking in terms of photographing pieces of art.
On the one hand, I feel like mass produced artwork is no longer art, it is a commodity that is bought and sold. At that point in time, I feel that the work is for decoration, as we spoke about in class, the exhibition value. For example, Mike David photography. I used to work at the Flatiron Crossing mall, and almost every day I worked I would pass by a booth for Mike David. The booth was set up to sell his huge gigantic photos of exotic landscapes and things of that nature. I have seen Mike David and said booths at many art festivals over the last couple years. My problem is that I see all the same pictures at his booths. He makes mass produced prints. I have even been to two separate houses that have the same exact Mike David print located inside.
It is at that point in time I feel like that work is no longer unique. I hate walking into someplace and seeing a piece of art and thinking, “oh, I have that same one”. It is no longer unique to me. Mike David’s photography is all about a sellable image, which is not wholly a bad thing, (I mean, the guy is pretty successful…his bills are obviously getting paid) but it terms of art in the age of mechanical reproduction, I frown upon it. The aura of the print is lost when he makes hundreds of those prints.
So then what about this whole education thing I spoke about? On the issue of photography to document other work, I think it is a good thing. Photography brought about an age of making the world smaller. Suddenly people could see exotic and beautiful places from around the world and with that, great works of art. Obviously seeing the Starry Night in person is something entirely different from seeing a photograph of it, but I think it is important that people be aware and have access to these types of things. I have seen images of that painting many times, and can appreciate what I have seen. Without those reproductions I may never have seen that painting. Who knows if I will ever be able to afford a trip to see any of the great works of art around the world. I feel like that type of documentation of artwork is good. It makes art less exclusive, and allows for a larger audience to have access to art and be educated by it.
As a digital photographer, it could not be an easier for me to make an unlimited amount of copies of my works. I choose not to when it comes to making prints. I make my prints very limited. We discussed in class the ability to create nearly exact copies of things like paintings because of advancements in imaging technology, and I am with Benjamin on this one. It takes away the aura and the ritual. That is why I choose to make my prints limited. I like them to be unique. I don’t want them to just be about the print, I want it to be about the process I went through to make the image. If a machine can remake for me 1,000 times, the aura and ritual is lost.


At the same time…I put most of my work on the internet...technically there could be 500 ‘copies’ of a picture being viewed at the same time…

So I am a hypocrite?

Probably.