1. The text talks about the "aura" of a work being destroyed when replicated specifically if it is done so in mass quantities and without significant detail. When it comes to photography what differentiates between the more acceptable "aura" of 2 dimensional photographs being destroyed and the less acceptable "aura" of other art being destroyed? does it lie within the naturally less strenuous art of photography that makes it more acceptable to replicate without too much destruction of the piece's "aura?"

2. The author notes that the nature of films, due to their indisputable representation of reality, can distort the truth which hasd become frequent in "capitalist America." is it not also true that other artists can distort reality in ways which affect public opinions and thoughts? if not, why so? if yes, give an example and discuss it.