Walter Benjamin
This article did not strike me with as much interest as the previous one did. The segments are broken up into very choppy numbered paragraphs with mainly historical context in the beginning. I found it very bland how Walter simply recalled upon the reproduction of artwork in early history, providing no personal insight into the information presented. He jumps around from how art is received to photography to disputes in the 19th century without making practical transitions. Possibly this is what was intended by the author or maybe I am simply paying too close attention to the stylist choice by Benjamin and not enough attention to his content. But I believe that your structure has to make sense in order for the information to seem attractive to the reader. Aside from the structure of the article the historical information provided about the reproduction of art and the argument between a painting and a photograph was interesting. I found it intriguing how the various arguments of what is art were made apparent. Is photography considered art? If it cannot be then surely film cannot be considered art, but then the question arises of where is the line drawn, what can be considered art and not art?