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?
I’m actually reading Jeffrey C.Goldfarb book ‘On cultural freedom An exploration of public life in poland and America’ the book is dated written in 1980 I think but more interesting as a contemporary account.
It talks a lot about the ways that artistic freedom in more subtly controlled in americas capitalist system where appeasing taste makers is critical to success.
Polands culturally freedom moved about a lot depending on the government and allowed for subtle ‘winking’ government critiques (which were even popular and consumed by party bureaucrats even if not publicly) and a lot of artistic risk (as success wasn’t really measured) but was very harsh on things seen as ‘anti communist’ or just socially undesirable.
This is because of the division between public and private opinions where both can be held, even if contradictory within Polish society at the time. So the subtle critiques as long as they were publicly not anti communist were accepted and actually a useful gauge for opinion.
Bit of a tangent here but yeah it talks about how rather then the literal censorship in poland which was routine and could be subtlety got around in USA artists are forced into a self censorship. They just won’t get played, shown or noticed.
It certainly doesn’t portray the polish system as better for artists but simply breaks down the various and different pressures that prevent artists being free in what they say and how they say it.
I think this is related and perhaps an interesting deviation to your point which I broadly agree with.
I always think back to K’naan who tanked his career after accepting agent/label advice. When talking about this period he also uses the term authenticity! Even if I agree with the other reply’s that this is a messy term that is somewhat loaded.
Actually, think we are using 'capitalism' here more in the sense of 'be revenue generating'/ 'self sustaining'. There is plenty of art whose function is beyond the private. It exists to question, to receive feedback, to get applause and needs an audience to engage. That doesn't make it inauthentic. However, artists whose art is designed for themselves, rather than an audience, would not necessarily seek to make it a livelihood choice, isnt it?
But capitalism really isn’t about preferences. It is about networks & favours & right time / right place thresholds & enclosures. Even creative work relies on this. For every authentic, random voice that breaks through, a pathway is carved to be followed (rapidly) by every derivative right place / right timer that follows. We don’t buy the preference (we really aren’t that brave) we buy the path. We flock & conform & validate. The few people who buy the preference quickly tire of it when everyone is on the same path. Remember Banksy? I think his work must have been authentic once. Indeed he must be desperate to recapture that moment. But once it became a pathway rather than a preference, the phones started ringing in capitalism land & the pattern formed in conformity land & suddenly the price is up & the cultural memory is embedded & a pretty average graffiti artist is elevated to the priesthood. I can’t think of any capitalist product - except commodities - that don’t work this way? Authenticity > threshold (breakthrough) > pattern (conformity) > mass reproduction > capture > mediocrity & copying (networks, favours) > enclosure (path dependence).
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.
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
"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."
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?
I’m actually reading Jeffrey C.Goldfarb book ‘On cultural freedom An exploration of public life in poland and America’ the book is dated written in 1980 I think but more interesting as a contemporary account.
It talks a lot about the ways that artistic freedom in more subtly controlled in americas capitalist system where appeasing taste makers is critical to success.
Polands culturally freedom moved about a lot depending on the government and allowed for subtle ‘winking’ government critiques (which were even popular and consumed by party bureaucrats even if not publicly) and a lot of artistic risk (as success wasn’t really measured) but was very harsh on things seen as ‘anti communist’ or just socially undesirable.
This is because of the division between public and private opinions where both can be held, even if contradictory within Polish society at the time. So the subtle critiques as long as they were publicly not anti communist were accepted and actually a useful gauge for opinion.
Bit of a tangent here but yeah it talks about how rather then the literal censorship in poland which was routine and could be subtlety got around in USA artists are forced into a self censorship. They just won’t get played, shown or noticed.
It certainly doesn’t portray the polish system as better for artists but simply breaks down the various and different pressures that prevent artists being free in what they say and how they say it.
I think this is related and perhaps an interesting deviation to your point which I broadly agree with.
I always think back to K’naan who tanked his career after accepting agent/label advice. When talking about this period he also uses the term authenticity! Even if I agree with the other reply’s that this is a messy term that is somewhat loaded.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opinion/sunday/knaan-on-censoring-himself-for-success.html
Actually, think we are using 'capitalism' here more in the sense of 'be revenue generating'/ 'self sustaining'. There is plenty of art whose function is beyond the private. It exists to question, to receive feedback, to get applause and needs an audience to engage. That doesn't make it inauthentic. However, artists whose art is designed for themselves, rather than an audience, would not necessarily seek to make it a livelihood choice, isnt it?
The riposte to this post is in Beyond Self-Interest: Why the Market Rewards Those Who Reject It, by Krzysztof Pelc.
But capitalism really isn’t about preferences. It is about networks & favours & right time / right place thresholds & enclosures. Even creative work relies on this. For every authentic, random voice that breaks through, a pathway is carved to be followed (rapidly) by every derivative right place / right timer that follows. We don’t buy the preference (we really aren’t that brave) we buy the path. We flock & conform & validate. The few people who buy the preference quickly tire of it when everyone is on the same path. Remember Banksy? I think his work must have been authentic once. Indeed he must be desperate to recapture that moment. But once it became a pathway rather than a preference, the phones started ringing in capitalism land & the pattern formed in conformity land & suddenly the price is up & the cultural memory is embedded & a pretty average graffiti artist is elevated to the priesthood. I can’t think of any capitalist product - except commodities - that don’t work this way? Authenticity > threshold (breakthrough) > pattern (conformity) > mass reproduction > capture > mediocrity & copying (networks, favours) > enclosure (path dependence).
Thanks, interesting observation.
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.
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
"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.
https://www.ias.edu/scholars/panofsky
"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."