Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
Investigador
en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte. / PhD in
Philosophy – University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)
Researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origins of art.
A review of Luciano Ambrosini's chapter (2025): The Aura in the Algorithm: Reimagining Walter Benjamin's Aesthetic Theory in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Introduction: can a machine have an aura?
In 1936, the German philosopher Walter Benjamin published an essay that would become one of the cornerstones of 20th-century art theory: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. There he introduced the concept of the aura: that unique, unrepeatable quality linked to the physical presence of the work and its tradition, which is lost when technical reproduction allows copies to be multiplied indefinitely. Photography and cinema, for Benjamin, were symptoms of this loss, but also bearers of new political functions.
Today, nearly a century later, we face an even more radical transformation. Artificial intelligence does not merely reproduce existing works; it generates new works without the need for a physical original. What, then, remains of the aura? Can an algorithm, with its cold mathematical efficiency, produce something that deserves that name?
Luciano Ambrosini, in a chapter published in 2025 within the volume Dialectic of Digital Enlightenment: Reclaiming Radical Philosophy for Our Times (Springer), addresses precisely this question (Ambrosini, 2025). The author proposes the apparently paradoxical notion of an "algorithmic aura" : a form of authenticity that resides not in the work's materiality or its history, but in its computational origin and the singularity of its generative process.
This approach, as we shall see, is not a mere extrapolation of Benjaminian thought, but a critical revision that attempts to account for the specificities of AI-generated art. From the perspective of our research on the S/Y/C model and Surgical Philosophy, Ambrosini's analysis offers valuable tools for thinking about the relationship between technique, authenticity, and aesthetic experience in the context of creative machines (Mallo, 2023, 2025, 2026a, 2026b).
Benjamin and the aura: a necessary reminder
Before delving into Ambrosini's proposal, it is worth recalling the central elements of Benjaminian theory. For Benjamin, the aura of a work of art is linked to its unique presence in space and time, to its unrepeatable "here and now". This presence confers on the work an authority, an authenticity, that tradition had considered inalienable.
Technical reproduction —lithography, photography, cinema— destroys that uniqueness. By multiplying copies, it separates the work from its original context, makes it accessible to the masses, strips it of its ritual character and gives it a political and pedagogical function. Benjamin saw in this process not only a loss, but also a gain: the possibility of an art in the service of collective emancipation, freed from the privileges of the elite.
AI-generated art, Ambrosini argues, poses an unprecedented challenge to this dichotomy. It is not a matter of reproducing an original, but of generation without an original. The AI work is not a copy of something earlier; it is, in principle, a novel creation. But neither does it have the physical uniqueness of traditional art, because it can be easily replicated and modified. Where, then, does the aura reside?
The "algorithmic aura": a productive paradox
Ambrosini's answer is the proposal of an "algorithmic aura" . This is not a contradiction in terms, but an extension of the Benjaminian concept to adapt it to the technical conditions of the present.
What would this new form of aura consist of? Ambrosini suggests that the authenticity of an AI work resides not in its physical materiality, but in the singularity of its generative process. Each time an algorithm produces a work, it does so on the basis of a dataset, parameters, and an architecture that are unique. Even if the code is the same, the conditions of generation —training data, random seeds, previous interactions— can lead to unrepeatable results.
The "algorithmic aura" would thus be the trace of that unique process, the mark of a non-human intelligence that nevertheless produces something that challenges us, moves us, makes us think. It is not the aura of physical presence, but the vestige of a computational complexity that cannot be reduced to mere repetition.
This notion, as Ambrosini himself warns, is not without problems. Can a machine have "authenticity" in the Benjaminian sense? Are we not projecting onto the algorithm categories that only make sense in the context of human subjectivity? The author offers no definitive answers, but opens a path of inquiry worth exploring.
Fluid authorship and digital democratisation
One of the most relevant aspects of Ambrosini's analysis is his treatment of the question of authorship in AI-generated art. Benjamin already noted that technical reproduction dilutes the figure of the traditional author, making it possible for works to circulate and be transformed by multiple agents.
With artificial intelligence, we witness an even deeper dissolution of the authorial figure. Authorship is no longer attributed to an individual consciousness, but is distributed along a chain of decisions and influences that includes the system's architecture, the provenance of the training data, the parameters selected by the operator, and even the randomness inherent to the generative process. The resulting work has no single father, but rather a diffuse network of contributors. This dispersal is not an anomaly, but the defining trait of a new creative ecology where the boundary between the human creator and the technical medium becomes unrecognizable. Ambrosini captures this transformation under the notion of "fluid authorship" , a concept that dismantles the figure of the creative genius and demands a thorough revision of inherited legal and aesthetic categories.
This fluidity has, however, a positive correlate: the democratisation of art. AI puts creative tools within reach of people without technical or artistic training. Anyone with access to a computer can generate images, music, or texts that previously would have required years of learning. This, as Ambrosini notes, challenges the power structures of the art world —galleries, museums, critics— and opens up the possibility of more inclusive and diverse expression.
Nevertheless, the author also warns of the dangers of this democratisation: the homogenisation of styles, the dependence on the same datasets, the risk that AI perpetuates biases and exclusions. The algorithm, like any tool, can be used to emancipate or to dominate. The difference lies in how we use it.
Ethics, bias, and human agency
Ambrosini devotes a section of his chapter to the ethical considerations of AI-generated art (Ambrosini, 2025). From a Benjaminian perspective, he analyses issues such as algorithmic bias, intellectual property, and the potential manipulation of audiences.
Algorithmic bias is one of the most pressing problems. AI systems learn from historical data, and that data reflects the inequalities and prejudices of our societies. An algorithm trained on Western artworks will generate images that reproduce those canons, ignoring or distorting other traditions. Technical democratisation can thus become a reproduction of cultural hegemony, rather than genuine plurality.
The question of intellectual property is equally complex. If an AI generates a work that closely resembles that of a human artist, who is infringing copyright? The programmer? The user? The system itself? Current laws are not prepared to answer these questions, and Ambrosini suggests we need to rethink the legal framework from scratch.
Finally, the author addresses the need to preserve human agency in the creative process. AI should not replace the artist, but expand their capacities. The danger is not that machines will replace us, but that we will delegate to them decisions that only humans can make —what is beautiful, what is meaningful, what deserves to be remembered.
Connection with research on the origin of art (S/Y/C)
Ambrosini's analysis resonates deeply with the research we have been developing on the S/Y/C model of neuronal functioning and the Law of Biological Coherence (Mallo, 2023, 2025, 2026a, 2026b). His notion of the "algorithmic aura" can be reinterpreted in light of our three dimensions.
The S (Survival) dimension reminds us that human aesthetic experience is rooted in homeostatic needs. Art moves us because it activates our autonomic nervous system, because it regulates our emotions, because it helps us survive symbolically. AI can generate formally complex objects, but it does not experience that need for regulation. Its "aura", if it exists, is not that of a living being seeking its balance, but that of a machine executing functions.
The Y (Symbolon) dimension is central to understanding the difference between human and algorithmic authenticity. Symbolon is an act of recognition through shared codes, a bridge between subjectivities. When a human contemplates a work, they do not only process forms; they recognise intentions, emotions, meanings. AI can produce works that we interpret as if they had intention, but that intention is projected by us. The "algorithmic aura" is, at bottom, an effect of our interpretation, not an intrinsic property of the algorithm.
The C (Wholeness) dimension points to the human need to close forms, to find coherent totalities. Art satisfies us when it achieves that wholeness. AI can generate formally closed objects, but it does not experience the drive toward wholeness. Its "aura" is, in this sense, a simulacrum of human wholeness.
Surgical Philosophy invites us to make a precise analytical cut in Ambrosini's proposal. It is not about rejecting the notion of "algorithmic aura" as false, but about distinguishing levels. At the level of technical production, the concept can be useful for describing the singularity of generative processes. At the level of full aesthetic experience, however, the "aura" remains the patrimony of the living. AI can surprise us, move us, inspire us. But the source of that emotion is not in the algorithm, but in our encounter with the algorithm. It is we who project onto the machine the capacity to move us. And that act of projection is, perhaps, the most human thing about art.
Implications for future research
Ambrosini's chapter opens several promising lines of work. The first is the need for empirical research on how viewers perceive and value AI-generated art. Do they attribute "aura" to these works? Under what conditions? What factors modulate that attribution?
The second line is the development of new legal and ethical frameworks for AI art. Benjaminian categories —original, copy, author, spectator— need to be revised in light of generative technologies. Ambrosini offers clues, but the detailed work remains to be done.
The third line is the exploration of new forms of collaboration between humans and machines. If AI cannot have an aura by itself, perhaps it can help create hybrid works where the human and the algorithmic intertwine. The future of art is not the replacement of the human by the machine, but synergy between the two.
From our perspective, this research should also incorporate a neurobiological dimension. It is not enough to analyse concepts; we must study what happens in the brain when we contemplate an AI work. Are the same regions activated as in human art? Are there differences? Can we measure "aura" in terms of neuronal activation? These are open questions, and answering them is part of the challenge of contemporary neuroaesthetics.
Final considerations: aura as encounter, not as property
Luciano Ambrosini's chapter reminds us that Walter Benjamin's thought, formulated nearly a century ago, remains extraordinarily fertile for thinking about our technological present. His concept of aura, conceived for the age of mechanical reproduction, can be reinterpreted for the age of algorithmic generation.
The notion of "algorithmic aura" is undoubtedly provocative. It forces us to ask what value we attribute to AI-generated works, and why. But perhaps Ambrosini's greatest achievement is to show that the aura is not a fixed property of works, but an effect of our relationship with them. If something has an aura, it is not because it exists in itself, but because we, the viewers, bestow it upon it.
And that is, perhaps, the deepest lesson for our research on the origin of art. Human art does not have an aura because it is "authentic" in a metaphysical sense, but because we treat it as such. We invest it with meaning, connect it with our history, make it part of our world. AI can produce objects that we also invest with meaning. But that act of investiture —that symbolon— remains human. And as long as it does, art, even that generated by algorithms, will continue to be a testimony of our capacity to find meaning in chaos.
References
Ambrosini, Luciano (2025). The Aura in the Algorithm: Reimagining Walter Benjamin’s Aesthetic Theory in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. In Bhabani Shankar Nayak, Dialectic of Digital Enlightenment: Reclaiming Radical Philosophy for Our Times. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 133-160. https://philpapers.org/rec/AMBTAI
Mallo, B. (2023). La construcción neuro-simbólica. Una aproximación al funcionamiento del cerebro desde una perspectiva multidisciplinar [Doctoral thesis, University of the Basque Country - Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea]. ADDI Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/10810/62701
Mallo, B. (2025). Arte y biología: Una aproximación neurofilosófica al origen de la experiencia estética. Lopez Mallo, Javier Bernabé. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y5WZMK
Mallo, B. (2025). Art and biology: A neurophilosophical approach to the origin of aesthetic experience. Lopez Mallo, Javier Bernabé. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y6C2XN
Mallo, B. (2026a). De la filosofía quirúrgica a la ley de coherencia biológica S/Y/C: Hacia una investigación sobre el origen del arte en la especie Homo. Lopez Mallo, Javier Bernabé. https://isbn.bibna.gub.uy/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=57196
Mallo, B. (2026a). De la filosofía quirúrgica a la ley de coherencia biológica S/Y/C: Hacia una investigación sobre el origen del arte en la especie Homo [Kindle edition]. Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GYGTJD5C
Mallo, B. (2026b). From surgical philosophy to the law of biological coherence S/Y/C: Toward a study of the origin of art in the Homo lineage. Lopez Mallo, Javier Bernabé. https://isbn.bibna.gub.uy/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=57197
Mallo, B. (2026b). From surgical philosophy to the law of biological coherence S/Y/C: Toward a study of the origin of art in the Homo lineage [Kindle edition]. Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GY89SZS1
Autor / Author
Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía – Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Investigador independiente en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte.
Bernabé Mallo
PhD in Philosophy – University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Independent researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origin of art.
Enlaces / Links
Página de autor Amazon / Amazon Author Page: https://www.amazon.com/author/bernabemallo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9002-9728
Plataforma EHUenRed / Link EHUenRed: https://www.ehu.eus/es/web/masterrak-eta-graduondokoak/red-latinoamericana-de-posgrados
Canal YouTube / Channel YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@neuroideas815
Canal YouTube / Channel YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBsf6OZ482NjST6QA-hvYtQ
Publicaciones y proyectos en desarrollo / Publications and projects:
https://www.amazon.com/author/bernabemallo
https://ehuenred.theglocal.network/ideas/el-origen-del-arte-en-el-cerebro-de-makapansgat-al-moma-del-primate-al-sapiens