The need for universality of the aesthetic judgement. Simply put, to judge something as beautiful, we need others. We need our judgement to be shared, and we need others' judgements. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: true, but universal beauty isn't so. Put in modern terms, universally beautiful is what a community finds beautiful,

Benjamin used the word "aura" to refer to the sense of awe and reverence one presumably experienced in the presence of unique works of art. According to Benjamin, this aura inheres not in the object itself but rather in external attributes such as its known line of ownership, its restricted exhibition, its publicized authenticity, or its cultural value. Aura is thus indicative of art's traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious or secular) ritual. With the advent of art's mechanical reproducibility, and the development of forms of art (such as film) in which there is no actual original, the experience of art could be freed from place and ritual and instead brought under the gaze and control of a mass audience, leading to a shattering of the aura. "For the first time in world history," Benjamin wrote, "mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual."

5. The definition of the aura as a "unique phenomenon of a distance however close it may be" represents nothing but the formulation of the cult value of the work of art in categories of space and time perception. Distance is the opposite of closeness. The essentially distant object is the unapproachable one. Unapproachability is indeed a major quality of the cult image. True to its nature, it remains "distant, however close it may be." The closeness which one may gain from its subject matter does not impair the distance which it retains in its appearance.

See, the ancient Greeks still remain an unmatched model of beauty. They could do amazing things because, unlike us, they didn't choke under the pressure of all the bullshit we have accumulated in centuries of history. They were like a child: open to experiment, mad at creativity, with no prejudices whatsoever. We, instead, are cluttered with meaningless noise: our creativity chokes under its burden. In platonic terms: they copied the idea of beauty directly from the immortal idea of beauty, while we copy copies of the idea of beauty (since we have to fit into Genres, classifications, and the like)

"The need for universality of the aesthetic judgement.

Simply put, to judge something as beautiful, we need others.

We need our judgement to be shared, and we need others' judgements.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: true, but universal beauty isn't so.

Put in modern terms, universally beautiful is what a community finds beautiful,"