Rome Reborn and Aura

     I am intrigued by modern reproduction and the way that it eliminates any need for physical media. When we watched Rome Reborn we were watching a video of a 3d model of Rome. There is no way for us to actually stand and look at this representation of Rome. In fact we are only able to view it the way it is meant to be viewed once it is rendered to video. This concept of art being viewable only via a computer's rendering "eye" is interesting in itself and I wonder what this intangible reproduction of a reproduction means for aura. If aura is simply uniqueness as Benjamin implies when he says "...were confronted with its uniqueness, that is, its aura" (1236), then surely Rome Reborn has absolutely no aura in its multiple reproductions. In class, however, we more or less came to the conclusion that the video allowed us to experience Rome's aura. It certainly didn't recreate Rome's "presence in time and space" (1234) and wasn't uniquely Rome. What then is the experience of the aura of art? From Benjamin's article it doesn't seem like you can experience aura; aura just is. The genuine article doesn't even really have an aura until it is reproduced. What I'm wondering is: how tangible is aura?

     Another thought the "Rome Reborn" brought to me was how it would be best to represent Rome. A bunch of people have spent probably thousands of hours putting together a model of Rome in order to represent Rome. Would Rome not have been better represented if instead of copying the structures of Rome the infrastructure  and government of Rome were represented? It seems like a less abstracted reproduction of Rome would be created if some modern city or country adopted the equivalent of a Caeser as well as aqueducts and whatever other innovations defined Rome (sorry I'm no Rome expert.) If a reproduction of Rome matched Romes function more than its appearance wouldn't that come much closer to capturing Rome's aura?