This essay tries to rethink Benjamin’s notion of “aura” through the consideration of two authors such as G. Didi-Huberman and D. Costello. The aim is not to distinguish between auratic and postauratic (or non-auratic) works of art, but to rethink the problem of aesthetic perception in the age of mechanical reproduction. More specifically, Costello and Didi-Huberman point out the relation between “aura” and “subjectivity”: on the one hand, the intersubjective (and ethical) nature of an “authentic” (i.e., auratic) experience; on the other hand, the presence of the aura nowadays in the “interplay of gazes” between the (subject-)work and the (subject-)spectator. Works of art are indeed characterized by a “two-fold” or aesthetic “transcendence” – they are at once both inside and outside my world – which enables them to resist the reification into reproducible commodity.