Notion of Reproduction in Benjamin's “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility”

In Part X of “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility,” Walter Benjamin examines the differences between photographing a painting and photographing an action performed in a studio; he concludes that what is reproduced when one photographs a painting “is a work of art, while the act of producing it is not.” However, Benjamin also states that, when photographing action in a film studio, “what is reproduced is not an artwork, and the act of reproducing it is no more such a work than in the first case” (110). Before finishing the rest of this section of the essay, I was very perplexed as to why it is that Benjamin considers a photograph of a painting to be artwork over a shot in a film (I will address his explanation of montage as the artwork in my next paragraph). My biggest difficulty with these statements lies in the question of authenticity, which Benjamin fails to acknowledge. It seems to me that a reproduction of what is already considered to be a work of art is nothing more than a reproduction. There is absolutely nothing authentic or progressive about photographing a painting; and, if I understood correctly (which I may very well not have), authenticity plays a huge role in the creation of the “aura.” If there is no originality/authenticity, and therefore no aura, is this first reproduction a work of art at all? (Just to clarify, I am assuming – perhaps incorrectly – that by “photographing a painting” Benjamin literally means taking a simple photograph of a painting).

Once I finished Part X, I originally thought I had come to better understand Benjamin’s point about photography in film…but then I changed my mind, and I realize now that I still disagree: “…each individual component of this montage is a reproduction of a process which neither is an artwork in itself nor gives rise to one through photography” (110). When photographing an action in a film studio, one is photographing something in the present time that has never been done before at that exact time and place, thus making it original by default. The act of creating something innovative and unique – whether it is through painting, photography, or film – is what I would consider to be art. In that exact moment that the cameraman captures whatever is in the onscreen space, he is creating authentic art. I understand that the editing process is essential to the completion of a film, and I agree with Benjamin that this “montage” that comes out of the editing process is really what brings the film together. I just do not understand why all of the necessary steps that artists must go through before this editing process are completely disregarded by Benjamin.