Manufacturing Scarcity: From Benjaminian Aura to Digital Capitalism

Benjamin Diptych. AI art

Introduction

The concept of scarcity spans both political economy and cultural theory. It is traditionally understood as the situation in which human desires exceed what is available. However, history shows that limitations on goods are not always due to natural constraints: often, they are intentionally produced. Walter Benjamin observed that mechanical reproduction transformed the experience of art by diluting its “aura.” Today, under digital capitalism, the logic of scarcity has not disappeared but has been reinvented. From the destruction of agricultural surpluses to the creation of unique blockchain tokens, value depends on mechanisms that artificially restrict abundance.

Industrial Scarcity and Supply Control

During the Industrial Revolution, abundance began to become a problem. Machines, railways, and factories multiplied production, but this expansion threatened to saturate markets and collapse prices. To counter this risk, producers and states resorted to limitation strategies. The case of sugar is illustrative: in various countries, entire harvests were destroyed or tons were dumped into the sea to reduce supply and increase future prices. Scarcity, in this case, was deliberate—a manipulation aimed at protecting profits.

Beyond agriculture, manufacturing applied similar tactics: planned obsolescence and staggered releases of car and appliance models. What seemed like technical progress was combined with business decisions designed to sustain profitability through imposed restrictions.

Art and the Limitation of Copies

In the cultural field, the logic was no different. Woodcuts or etchings allow for nearly unlimited editions, but workshops and artists soon realized that too many copies eroded the value of each work. Thus, after printing a certain number of copies, plates were scratched or destroyed. This gesture turned each print into part of a finite series, giving each piece an aura of singularity.

Benjamin analyzed this tension in his famous essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936). For him, the “aura” of a work was anchored in its unique, unrepeatable presence. Photography and cinema, by multiplying identical images, corroded that uniqueness. Yet, as seen in printmaking, the market always found ways to reestablish limits, to set boundaries on what could have been infinite.

From Factory to Platform

If industrial modernity was marked by the abundance of physical goods, contemporary digital life is characterized by the abundance of information. Reproducing a file, song, or photograph costs almost nothing. Copies are indistinguishable from originals. In response, tech platforms develop their own control mechanisms.

Digital Rights Management (DRM) restricts the reproduction of songs or movies; newspaper paywalls limit access to news; algorithms decide which content emerges and which sinks into invisibility. Scarcity now translates into visibility, access, and attention. In an environment of information excess, what is scarce is what stands out. Users’ attention, finite and contested, has become the most sought-after commodity.

NFTs and the Simulation of Uniqueness

Within this framework arise non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Unlike a print, whose plate is destroyed, digital files remain available and can be reproduced without limit. What is unique is the certificate recorded on the blockchain. Scarcity resides not in the image but in the inscription that declares its singularity.

In this way, NFTs extend the same logic that drove print workshops: establish a limit, designate an original, and guarantee the buyer something not anyone can claim. The difference is that the limitation no longer relies on material destruction but on an algorithmic and social convention.

Scarcity as a Social Construction

The examples discussed—the sugar dumped at sea, scratched plates, DRM, and NFTs—show a constant: scarcity is not a simple natural fact but a social construction. Benjamin warned that technology alters the relationship between work and audience, diluting the aura. In digital capitalism, that aura does not vanish but is reinscribed in new forms: the influencer performing authenticity, the algorithm granting visibility to some and denying it to others, the platform selling privileged access.

The paradox is evident: in a world of material and digital abundance, value still depends on the ability to impose limits. Scarcity has become a political and economic strategy, not an inevitable fate.

Conclusion

From industrial to digital economies, the logic of scarcity has accompanied the production of value. Whether destroying agricultural surpluses, limiting artistic editions, or encoding restrictions in the cloud, societies have continuously reinvented ways to make the abundant seem limited. Benjamin understood that technology transforms the aura but does not extinguish it: the singular is never entirely lost, only reinvented. Today we witness a stage in which scarcity is more artificial than ever, manufactured in code, market, and performance. Recognizing this is essential to understanding how power is organized in the digital age.

Bibliography / References

·         Benjamin, W. (2003). The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility. Mexico: Ítaca.

·         Baudrillard, J. (2009). The Consumer Society. Madrid: Siglo XXI.

·         Bourdieu, P. (1988). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Madrid: Taurus.

·         Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

·         Varian, H. (1998). Markets for Information Goods. California Management Review, 41(4).

·         Graw, I. (2010). High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture. Berlin: Sternberg.