I found some of the ideas in Benjamin's essay to be quite interesting.  When discussing how when photography was first invented, the public questioned its value as art, Benjamin makes the point that perhaps it changed the nature of art altogether.  This causes me to further consider the question that we all keep coming back to: what is Art?  (Puddle anyone?)  This is sort of a goofy example, but ASCII just popped into my head; people use letters and characters on the computer (something that most people would never consider as an artistic medium) and put them together to create drawings and images, almost like a mosaic of symbols.  As artists, it's our job to constantly consider new and innovative ways to make art, using materials and tools (even if they are goofy) that challenge artistic traditions.                                                                                                                                                                                             Another interesting point the article made was the difference between cult and exhibition value.  Benjamin says that early cave paintings and the like, although originally created to have cult/religious/spiritual value, have only recently become recognized as art.  This raises an interesting question for me.  Since we keep arguing that what makes something Art is the creator's inetion, this case makes me wonder: are these cave paintings and such truly art, since they were not created with the intention of being art?  Who gets to decide what is and isn't art?                                                                                                                                                                                                            And finally, I'd like to comment on "the same ancient lament that the masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration," and Benjamin's observation that film seems to paradoxically marry distraction to concentration since "the public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one."  I question whether this is really true, because it seems to me like the viewer of a film ultimately chooses, on an individual basis, to take either an active or passive position in the viewing of the film.  And I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel pretty damn distracted a lot of the time... is it presumptuous of me to think of myself as an artist of sorts, or am I merely a part of the mass?  How can I work towards making myself and others more thoughtful, intentional, concentrated, and artistic in every day life?  And is distraction always necessarily bad?