Does Digital Art Have An "Aura"?

How do the ideas from Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" apply to contemporary digital media?

"Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" has a valid idea that art has a form of "aura", and when reproduced it loses a piece of it. This is very similar to a belief some people have; when being photographed it takes a piece of the sole away.

The digital media and its produce today is an art form easily accessible for the masses and in most cases produced to reach the masses. One could say that it loses it "aura" but I rather believe that it loses it uniqueness as it becomes a common image everyone has seen and therefore lacks rarity. A good example of this would be advertisements which are created for targeting the masses as much as possible are soleness as they are pieces of art simply created to attract attention and convey a message to purchase something; either a service or product.

Digital media in the form of photography has lost a lot of credibility as one nowadays can re-touch any picture/person to look a certain way. Therefore people can't believe what they see as it is all a manufactured product of digital media.

There was a time when "Art" was made by artists who were skilled professionals. Now that anyone with a computer can create things digitally (music, images, videos, etc), what does that mean for "art"?

In my opinion it means that art and creating masterpieces demand more and now really have to have a "wow" factor before being a success as now anyone can do it. And to break out and make yourself a "known" digital artist requires creating exceptional pieces of work. There are many people out there with the knowledge of how to create music, usually techno/tranquility as these genres are solely made on the computer, but require great skill and creativity as it is so popular to make. And the way you can judge a persons piece of music is by the "download popularity" of it. The more downloads the more recognized. And concerning art pieces, I believe that the possibles of digital media have broadened the spectrum of what art is, as now things such as themes, backgrounds and icons are pieces of art as much as anything else.

Is a photoshopped image "authentic"?

No, but to a degree yes. I don't believe photoshopped images of people are authentic, but images where you crop out the sides of pictures I would still consider authentic!

Do digital "things" have an "aura" (in Benjamin's terms)?

Yes, I believe even digital arts pieces intended for billboards have an aura, but not a positive one. But digital pieces of scenery definitely have a positive and calming aura. I personally am very fond of digital art pieces of scenery. I am a big fan of having a calming scenery as a desktop background and can highly recommend the site: www.deviantart.com, fantastic site for people that enjoy photography or digital art.