I'm not certain I would frame this as "authenticity" vs. "inauthenticity." The concepts are too slippery to be of much use. A more interesting/worrying point might be to look at who is making art or able to make art today. As working class participation in art-making declines, and the places where one can live "the art life" are long gone, is it just leisure for the wealthy? Is that all it ever was?

Expand full comment

Authenticity versus inauthentic seems to me to be not the right frame for this. There is something in what you say but it's not quite right.

As an artist I do want my work to speak to people so I do make adjustments to try and better do that which is ,I think pretty normal for artists. That's not the same of course as me saying making things that are not true etc.

And it is simply the nature of all representations that they by definition are , not what they represent.

Expand full comment

the authenticity is somewhat solipsistically defined,

and any case any art can be market and captured as capital by curators, or collectors, just look at all those "outsider artists"… so popular in the USA, some outsider art curators claim that outsider art only exists in North America and Europe (not Australia) as possibly because the elite art peeps (curators/collectors) or their clientele, cannot be persuaded by the local colonial stuff, much the same way modern Aboriginal art is not regarded as anything other than folk art (not outsider art). Curators rule this market taxonomies, and authenticity in this market is important for blockbuster artists who curate their own careers rather than actually physically make art, or even design it, they just sort of walk past and wave their hands, (Matthew Barney, Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Marina Abramovic) some curate themselves with a rebel theme, sticking to the man, Belgian Wim Delvoye, Australian John Kelly

please go see my waiting-for-my-big-break authenticity at https://meika.loofs-samorzewski.com and my lack of authenticity at https://whyweshould.substack.com

Expand full comment

"Authenticity" I can't really be what I want to be, because I wouldn't have any friends. Relationships require flexibility, give and take. It's called "politics" You're both anti-social and anti-political.

Shakespeare's plays were not "authentic" And that's good.


"While it is true that commercial art is always in danger of ending up as a prostitute, it is equally true that noncommercial art is always in danger of ending up as an old maid. Non commercial art has given us Seurat's "Grande Jatte" and Shakespeare's sonnets, but also much that is esoteric to the point of incommunicability. Conversely, commercial art has given us much that is vulgar or snobbish (two aspects of the same thing) to the point of loathsomeness, but also Durer's prints and Shakespeare's plays. For, we must not forget that Durer's prints were partly made on commission and partly intended to be sold in the open market; and that Shakespeare's plays -in contrast to the earlier masques and intermezzi which were produced at court by aristocratic amateurs and could afford to be so incomprehensible that even those who described them in printed monographs occasionally failed to grasp their intended significance— were meant to appeal, and did appeal, not only to the select few but also to everyone who was prepared to pay a shilling for admission."

Expand full comment