Thoughts on "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

Walter Benjamin was careful with his words regarding different forms of art, their relations to each other, and their time periods, such as photography and painting; comparing them through the means of an analogy of "magician to surgeon," and pointing out that in the stone ages, drawings of elk on rock walls were considered forms of magic. He elaborates on the value of art and what it has become, and it even what it will become; how it will behave: "Historically, [art] advanced intermittently and in leaps at long intervals, but with accelerated intensity."

I feel as though he is correct in his declaration that art, when reproduced, does not hold the same uniqueness or value that it did when it was to begin with - this is a given, as more of something almost universally means that it becomes less expensive. But when he declares that a replicated piece of art essentially is "less" of a work of art than it used to be, I disagree, and I'll use exotic automobiles as an example; sure, they are called "exotic" because of their rarity, but it's not just that, they are almost universally (once more) of greater intricacy and build quality than anything else on the road. When it comes to reproduced art, it may not have the same net worth or rarity, but it still holds the factor that makes it great art; it doesn't lose its "essence," per say.