Abstract

Although with “aura” Benjamin designates more a “family”, or a “constellation” of phenomena, than a univocal concept, the analogical traits of these phenomena are grounded in an aesthetic unity of sense. The aesthetic (as distinguished from the “artistic”) understanding of “aura” is not juxtaposed to the “anthropological, perceptual-mnemonic, and visionary” dimension of it (Bratu Hansen), but it is rather its root. As a transcendental aspect of perception and imagination, though, the aura marks our experience in different ways, according to determinate historical conditions. If, in a post-traditional society, every attempt to produce auratic experiences is doomed to produce phony auratic phenomena, the potentialities of the aura are nevertheless not exhausted: the “room-for-play” (Spielraum) of experimentation invoked by Benjamin can be maintained open only in the interplay of auratic and non-auratic polarities: attention vs. distraction, distance vs. nearness, tactile vs. optical, determined vs. undetermined.