During this time when this piece was written, Benjamin has been exiled by Nazi Germany. He moved to France which left him deeply affected by the politically tumultuous situation in France. In this piece he explores how Marx capitalism would cause exploitation of the proletariat which would conclude in destruction. He claims that a change in the mode of production demands the construction of a new concept that would flesh out the predisposition behind creation of art within an economically driven climate. He claims this new concept would render facism dysfunctional because it would only obliterate the importance of creativity associated with the work of art.
Benjamin admits that art has always been reproducible. He references traditional forms of reproduction within art such as etching, monoprints, lithography, and other forms of printing. But the technological reproduction of art is something different in it’s own right. Benjamin explains the two manifestations of reproducible art using technology such as photography and film: 1) technological reproducibility of art affects the authenticity of the original work. The technological modes of reproduction obliterates the authenticity of the work of art yet it’s different from replicas made by hand which would be considered “counterfeit copies”. As discussed, in the Effects of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, the same applies with technological reproduction because the aura becomes displaced or lost. When referring to film, the aura is lost and the reproducible image itself exemplifies a subtle shift. 2) the process of technological reproduction renders itself as a work of art such as the art of the film or photo.
Benjamin explains the subtle changes that may affect the way people consume reproduced technology:
1) technological reproduction often emphasizes aspects of a work of art which might not be easily seen by the human eye.
– What immediately comes to mind are directors like David Lynch, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Wes Anderson. Directors are that known for their distinct style of cinematography. As the audience, we  come to assign specific scenes that each director has created that defines their style as directors. But rarely do we come to realize that their acclaimed artistic eye within the realm of film is really just a lens in which we view the film. We willingly and excitingly wait to see films made by these director and willingly accept the type of reality that they produce. In Psycho we only see certain scenes of the murder through the victims perspective until Hitchcock decides to show subtle cutaway scenes of a knife or chocolate syrup as blood. The director makes the decision and calls the shots over our perception. It makes me question if as humans, are we almost subconsciously willing to accept other realms of reality for entertainment? Or does it go deeper to quell a sense of insecurity or escapism?
2) it has the ability to be accessible through the reproduction. Allowing a wider audience to to consume the piece, further prolonging the physical lifespan of the reproduced work, making the original work irrelevant.
– I can definitely agree to this notion especially with the age of the internet where everything is obtainable with just a click. But it makes me wonder about bootleg films that tend to have certain subtle technical aspects changes such as the lighting or volume due to poor reproduction under illegal  channels. Does this then undermine or challenge the first subtle change listed where a certain lens is established by the director? Does a warp in the director’s lens and authenticity of the reproduction? How severe can a change in the lens be to the audience and to the authenticity of the original work?
-It also makes me question if due to the over accessibility of the work, does it lose its aura or speciality? It reminded me of Bogost with “Egg McNothing” of how the change in the McDonalds chain, allowing breakfast all day became a sign of a subtle shift to how we consume items and deal with our own patience. Similar to the egg mcmuffin being only available at breakfast time, movies (for a long time now) are no longer captive within movie theaters. There is no longer a singularity of a product and it’s intensity dies out. McDonalds and technological reproduction are somewhat parallel because they change the way people are conditioned where Egg McMuffins and movies in movie theaters obtained a tiny bit of aura within their products of production only to be abolished.
These subtle changes contends to the devaluation for the here and now which decays the aura of the art. Though technological reproduction also liberates the work of art from it’s subservience to the ritual roots of making replicas in a secular setting (which had become one of the purposes behind the creation of art). Once detached from it’s roots, it’s social function can be politically manipulated. Technology allows artists to constantly make modifications and improvements, creating more eternal value.
The piece switches from the person holding the camera to the person in front of the camera- the actor. The duty of an actor is to perform in front of a “mechanical apparatus” which allows it to capture the actor’s movements and replicate it across multiple screens. The replication dissolves the aura of the actor’s performance. Does this mean that the only way to receive the true deliverance of an actor is only through seeing plays in person?
A distinction between the art lover and the mass audience is then explored by Benjamin. The art lover closely observes the work of art in order to appreciate the aesthetics value. An art lover becomes absorbed by the work of art. The mass audience approaches art for distraction or entertainment. The work of art becomes assimilated into the mass audience, almost into the background of their presence. It counters the art lover where the piece of art is the focus and reason to their presence. Though the masses become utilized as an instrument of political mobilization. This lends a subtle authority to the masses because of their lack of authentic appreciation for the piece of art. This becomes almost like a void that is usually fulfilled by the artist but since they don’t appreciate it’s aesthetic value or become absorbed by the piece, politicians and campaigns look to fill this void. They politicize pieces of work so that the masses are able to react to it. They are unaware of it’s aesthetic value that art lovers are aware of. Benjamin shows how a piece of work has the ability to absorb or be absorbed by the viewer.

Antonio Gramsci brings up two interesting concepts in “The Formation of the Intellectuals,” they are the organic and traditional intellectuals, which are formed from social groups. He begins by explaining the organic intellectual by pretty much saying that an organic intellectual would be someone with both the knowledge of industry technology and someone involved in labor. In addition, organic intellectuals are spotted easily when new social classes rise to power since organic intellectuals could be considered revolutionaries. Gramsci’s concept of the “organic intellectual” shows his support for the working class, it shows that he believed in the capabilities the working class had to offer. The traditional intellectuals can be seen as the people in power, or the people who support the system in power. Traditional intellectuals are significant in the way hegemony operates because for an emerging class to entirely overthrow the ruling class, it becomes necessary for the traditional intellectuals to come under the influence of the emerging class ideology (1006). In other words, it becomes necessary for the traditional intellectuals to change their usual linear way of thinking and doing things.
Furthermore, Gramsci critiques the usual definition of intellectual which is associated with the traditional intellectual (teachers, doctors, etc) because he claims, “in any physical work there exists a minimum of technical qualification, that is, a minimum of creative intellectual.” In other words, an intellectual can not only be defined by how “book smart” he or she is or it can’t be exclusive to only “book smart” people. The definition of intellectual has to fit those who are intelligent through other forms such as music, art, etc. This old definition shows that the classification of a person within society is more linked to their social function (profession) than their unique humanity. Gramsci states, “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals” (1004). In other words, society does not let many people fulfill their paths of intellectualism. For example, money stops a lot of people from continuing their education, preventing the existence of future doctors or lawyers. Plus, many people don’t fulfill their roles as intellectuals in a society because they never discover it. Think of them as undiscovered artists. I think the fact that Gramsci is challenging the definition of intellectual, opens the door for the working class to gain power and respect. He is speaking for the working class that was not given the opportunity to be part of the traditional intellectuals, but that nonetheless are intellectuals.