leaves its locale to be received in the studio of a lover of art; the choral production, performed in an auditorium or in the open air, resounds in the dra wing room The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated. This holds not only for the art work but also, for instance, for a landsca pe which passes in review before the spectator in a movie. In the case of the art object, a most sensitive nucleus-namely, its authenticity-is interfered with whereas no natural object is vulnera ble on that score. The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transm issible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the fomer, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration ceases to matter. And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object One might subsume the elim inated element in the term aura and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by say ing: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or istener in his own particularsituation, it reactivates the object reproduced These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary crisis and renewal of mankind Both processes are intimately connected with the contemporary mass movements. Their most powerful agent is the film. Its social significance, particularly in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic aspect, that is, the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural herta ge. This phenomenon is most palpable in the great historical films. It extends to ever new positions. In 1927 Abel Gance excla imed enthusiastically Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven will make films.all legends, all mythologies and all myths, all founders of religion, and the very religions. await their exposed resurrection, and the heroes crowd each other at the gate Presumably without intending it, he issued an invitation to a far-reaching liquidation During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity s entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it isleaves its locale to be received in the studio of a lover of art; the choral production, performed in an auditorium or in the open air, resounds in the drawing room. The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated. This holds not only for the art work but also, for instance, for a landscape which passes in review before the spectator in a movie. In the case of the art object, a most sensitive nucleus - namely, its authenticity - is interfered with whereas no natural object is vulnerable on that score. The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced. Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration ceases to matter. And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object. One might subsume the eliminated element in the term ’aura’ and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced. These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary crisis and renewal of mankind. Both processes are intimately connected with the contemporary mass movements. Their most powerful agent is the film. Its social significance, particularly in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic aspect, that is, the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage. This phenomenon is most palpable in the great historical films. It extends to ever new positions. In 1927 Abel Gance exclaimed enthusiastically: Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven will make films... all legends, all mythologies and all myths, all founders of religion, and the very religions... await their exposed resurrection, and the heroes crowd each other at the gate. Presumably without intending it, he issued an invitation to a far-reaching liquidation. III During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is