6-Lillie Cohn-Walter Benjamin and Authenticity

Reading the Benjamin piece made me realize something about my own appreciation for art. I can understand the history and the aesthetic beauty that comes with art from the 16-18th centuries, but after a while (and I know this is probably a fault of my own) they start to all look very similar. It is only when artists began challenging what was considered aesthetically pleasing or challenging the public's notion of art, that I really became interested.
Having said that, I think the issue here lies with the combination of form and context. Ian talks about how the two play equal (or at least complimentary) roles in every work of art. "Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be." (p298, Benjamin) This to me, is the key difference in reproductions, versus the originals. No one will ever be able to put a signed urinal in a gallery ever again and have it create the same impact that it did when Duchamp entered it into the competition in 1917. It is this context that is missing from reproductions. The form could be immaculately copied, but the context and the ingenuity cannot be replicated.
As I'm writing this, I'm thinking of Duchamp's rendition of the Mona Lisa, and perhaps disagreeing with myself... Let me know what you think.
To close this thought, I wanted to leave you with something my mom used to tell me: We were in a museum together when I was about six, and we were looking at a big wall with a huge Rothko on it, and I was perplexed by how this was hanging in such a fancy museum, when the canvas was covered with two different colors of paint, in shapes that I definitely could have made. When I told her this, and said, "Mom, I could have made this," she turned and looked at me, and very frankly said, "but you didn't." That idea has always stayed with me when I'm thinking about art, and has really made a difference in my appreciation for artists.