Walter Benjamin 1936
"Even the most perfect reproduction of a work is lacking one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes it may have suffered in physical condition over the years, as well as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the original.
The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity."
so there is pedigree, heritage in authentic art... the work become symbolic of the cult
"When the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult, the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever."
Anyone can have a copy of a Picasso on their wall. But only one man can have the original that Picasso painted on his wall. But we have moved so far away from this now.... Bridget Riley, Damien Hirst lay not one finger on their work, but their cults exist nonetheless. Mechanical reproduction can help with the idea of "fashionability", but the original is still worth having.
My confusion about the art world is that I wouldn´t want to buy "an original signed print" by any artist. What´s the point in having a mechanical copy? I want an original on my wall, one that has specific meaning to me, if to no-one else. Do people have more money that sense? Or is my sense so very different to other people´s?
