With our group circle on Friday, we kept throwing the term "aura" around rather loosely. The term we were using did not seem to hold as much meaning as the definition that was given to us on the backgrounder. When a picture is reproduced, we ultimately decided that the original was needed as a reference for the copy to have any meaning (aura) whatsoever. Not to beat a dead horse here, but I feel as if I didn't quite understand how that could be possible. When our group decided this, does it mean that both copies need to be present when we interpret them, or do we, as readers, need to have common knowledge of the original before reviewing the copy of the original?
I'm going to assume we're talking about the latter, which leads me to think of irony. Now, I'm not thinking of irony as if there is a "we" and a "them," but rather in the sense that there must be common knowledge of a concept, otherwise misunderstanding will occur. Can aura work in this same way, or does aura have a different meaning for each person? I guess the ownership of aura really has me confused. Is the author the only one who can see the true aura of an original, or does the author "die" in this case, and leave the aura up to interpretation?