680 Google hits. Don't worry if the word is strange: it's strange in German, too. :o)

from reference below:

As for "aura," Benjamin describes it as the work of art's uniqueness and the "phenomena of distance, however close [an object] may be;" he uses the examples of distant mountains and a tree's bough overhead the observer -- both contain "aura" to the extent that they are images that are not, and have not been, reproduced mechanically. Here Benjamin is more unsure about the positive versus the negative consequences of this process. His writings suggest that the loss of aura (as opposed to authenticity) is not necessarily a good thing; but, although Benjamin wrote elsewhere that the loss of the auratic tradition could cause "irreplaceable losses to human experience," in "The Work of Art" he sees only positive results from this process of decay.

surrounding the artefacts and exhibits

the aura generating from the artefacts and exhibits

"Auratic" strikes me as non-English. Sure it gets 680 Google hits. But "auric" gets 54,200. I quote two as references. Sure quite a few of the hits are non-native, but if you look at the references, I think you´ll see that this is the usual English form.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-06-12 12:15:53 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

But jerrie´s solution of avoiding this word, which is horrible in both forms, is better.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-06-13 10:45:38 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, on researching further, I find that PaLa and all the non-natives above are right. There is however a problem with \"auratic\", as you can see from the reactions of jerrie, Louise and me. Most native English speakers will either:
1) not understand it at all, or
2) misunderstand it hazily as some form of \"auric\", or
3) react like j, L, and me.

In the end, I don´t know what to recommend for caroline. I really don´t think \"auratic\" works. It has the opposite problem to aesthetic - it is too underworked. But maybe after all it has to be, since the museum is probably intending exactly that, having read that abstruse Cambridge document. It´s just that very few people will understand it.

Or maybe I do know what I recommend: jerrie´s answer.