The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction- Walter Benjamin

Walter Benjamin means to break down the views of how mass production of art works and why it works in general. To any reader, it makes sense. The more art you make, the more you'll sell, the more you'll be able to continue making your art an turning a profit for it. It's not just about the ability to make art, it's how it's done. And even further, it's not about the one piece you made and how many other different ones you can crank out, it's how much of the same thing you can produce for the masses. He references types of Printmaking, and yes, it's a valuable tactic for mass producing large amounts of similar works so that multiple people can have something they like. It's a matter of having lots of the same thing for everyone, provided they want one. With this, it makes me think of the Artist's Alley at convention centers, at least for the conventions I go to. These artists produce large numbers of singe pieces so that anyone who walks by their booth has the chance to have one if they want. The purchases happen, and they get more production funded. It's a cycle.

He talks about the impact of the art, and what its presence does. He talks about the process it took to make the original and what went into it. Every art piece has its trials and tribulations, its time taken until satisfaction, and specific materials used to get the best look. Each person is going to react differently to a particular piece, and the artist only has so much control over that. They want to convey a feel, or an "aura" as Benjamin put it. That feeling will be replicated over and over for the masses, but still bring different reactions.
With a particular piece, there's a slight risk of overdoing it or potentially liquidating the effect wanted. With so many of them around, it might end up becoming too common or unpleasant to see if brought to exposure too often. Granted, the piece doesn't always end up that way. Art pieces don't necessarily end up the same way overplayed songs do, art is entirely visual while a song can quickly become an annoying drone, a flat background noise if presented too much. Art takes purely a visual experience to begin with, which leads to more experiences upon further analysis. In short, it's harder to totally burn out an art piece, but the effect can still happen if the presentation is done "right".
However, certain pieces can be considered tradition to see and might never get old to look at. For example, those old marble statues found in Greece. They're exceptionally old and one of the most common things thought of when thinking of the term "art", yet they're considered a landmark and a stepping stone in the history of art rather than an annoyance. They give background to what we call art now. While they weren't mass produced and copied over and over (they really couldn't do that during the time period), they're still seen anywhere there's a museum, promotional work for that particular line of art, etc.