During my reading of The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, I received a strange feeling about each medium of art as it was mentioned. It seems as though all forms of art, even painting; are so new in their concept of creation, and further, the creation of exhibition of that art.

But that's not what I'm going to talk about. In the reading, the author had mentioned the actor in front of the lens, and the loss of his aura. "For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it." The process of being an actor is to have your body go on without it's aura; to be seen not as a total being. This idea sparked my wonder of when and how actors seem to have been given back their aura. What about candid recordings, or documentary? If the actor is not actually an actor, but rather themselves, are they still without an aura? The author denounced being on-screen to in-person as an actor, considering the diluted character that has come to be from a series of staged shots, rather than developing a relationship with the audience. In film, actors are given multiple chances to portray themselves, but not in documentary.

Documentary is what gave the aura back to the actor. The aura of a person documented has much more of their aura with them than someone who is on-stage, performing. Although the piece of film is just picture and sound, and can be looked at in a series of rectangles, you can still hold the validity of a person being over a fictional character in almost every situation. Documentation is about what is real, and it was only a matter of time before film was utilized in the portrayal of something that actually exists; as archival. In this case, we can look at anything archival as art to hold an aura. Whether it be a painting, photograph, or film; it was created to capture the aura of particulars. Even if the film is not about a person, the aura of an organization or location as a whole is meant to be captured. As art, documentary is made to give back and deliver the aura to the audience to know it as it is. 

Furthering this idea, I have two follow-up ideas:
1. What about the aura of a person who is being photographed in a staged session in comparison to candid photographs? Can one be more powerful because of the aura captured in the photograph?
2. What happens when you film a performance that is being performed in front of an audience? If the actor is now an on-stage actor, is there a greater delivery of "aura"?

-Colin Self