“was wrong in saying that the more copies, the less the authentic original has value: it’s exactly the opposite - the more people that have posters of the Mona Lisa, the more collectors will want the original”

But Benjamin is describing the way mechanical reproduction has a withering effect on the “aura” of a work of art; it’s value of a different kind that the Marxist is discussing. Benjamin refers to the very dynamic Stern is relying upon as the “phony spell of a commodity” (page 231 in Illuminations).
At the end of the day, Benjamin’s essay is political, directly addressing Fascism but conditioned by a value system antagonistic to the sort of desire Stern would exploit.

I’ve heard this conflated/misused by opponents of and/or newcomers to CC, to say that monetary value decreases as a work of art is distributed (we both agree this is silly - I am not attributing b/c the two that come to mind have since changed their minds and would likely not want to be linked to). This is what I was arguing against, and again, I misspoke (was a phone interview).

But, and maybe this will carry on our discussion, I also disagree that the two are necessarily always opposed (what I think you and Benjamin are saying) — sometimes a meme’d work, even (tho less often) one that is misread (but later studied more b/c of this), can increase in both “forms” of value…

Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin’s; I’m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay. (”Aura” is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it’s certainly a debatable one. It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin’s definition of it is difficult to quantify - though, I admit I do prefer to think it’s for real.) I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger’s Ways of Seeing. It’s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn’t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of “aura” to works. Your referencing of Benjamin’s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it’s possible we’re in an echo chamber. I’m not trying to beat a dead horse).

Finally, I’m not familiar with the term meme’d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied. Is there more to it? Is a photograph a meme’d work, or does it need to be digital? In any case, from the perspective of the essay I’d say that a meme’d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn’t have an aura to begin with. Again, I don’t think that’s “good” or “bad”, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.

When I say meme’d, I mean the copied buzz of a work which can often happen through re-blogging. And aura, in your/Ben’ sense of the word, is unaffected. Hoep to chat face to face some time….