Authentic (pronounced aw-then-tik)
(1) Something not false or copied; genuine; real.
(2) Having an origin supported by unquestionable
evidence; authenticated; verified: with certified provenance.
(3) Representing one’s true nature or beliefs; true to
oneself or to the person identified.
(4) Entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement
with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy.
(5) In law, executed with all due formalities; conforming
to process.
(6) In music (of a church mode and most often applied to
the Gregorian chant), having a range extending from the final to the octave
above.
(7) In music (of a cadence), progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord.
(8) In musical performance, using period instruments and historically researched scores
and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been
played at the time it was written (or in certain cases, first performed).
(9) Authoritative; definitive (obsolete).
1300–1350: From the Middle English authentik & autentik
(authoritative, duly authorized (a sense now obsolete)), from the Old French autentique (authentic; canonical (from
which thirteenth century Modern French gained authentique)), from the Late Latin authenticus (the work of the author, genuine ( which when used as a
neuter noun also meant “an original document, the original”), from the Ancient Greek
αὐθεντικός (authentikós)
(original, primary, at first hand), the construct being αὐθέντης (authéntēs)
(lord, master; perpetrator (literally, “one who does things oneself; one who acts independently (the construct being aut(o-) (self-) + -hentēs (doer)) + -ikos (–ic)
(the adjective suffix)), from the primitive Indo-European root sene- (to accomplish, to achieve). The alternative spellings authentical, authentick, authenticke & authentique are all archaic.
Authentic is an adjective (and a non-standard noun), authentically is an
adverb, authenticity & authentification
are nouns, authenticate, authenticating &
authenticated are verbs; the most common noun plural is authentifications.
The modern sense of something “real, entitled to
acceptance as factual” emerged in the mid-fourteenth century and synonyms
(depending on context) include true, veritable, genuine, real, bonafide, bona
fide, unfaked, reliable, trustworthy, credible & unfaked. As antonyms (the choice of which will be
dictated by context and sentence structure) the derived adjectives include: non-authentic,
inauthentic & unauthentic (the three usually synonymous but nuances can be
constructed depending on the context) and the curious quasi-authentic, used
presumably to suggest degrees of fakeness, sincerity etc). Inauthentic from 1783 is the most often used
and thus presumably the preferred form and in this it competes also with phony,
fake, faux, bogus, imitation, clone, impersonation, impression, mimic, parody,
reflection, replica, tribute, reproduction, apery, copy, counterfeit, ditto,
dupe, duplicate, ersatz, forgery, image, likeness, match, mime, mimesis,
mockery, parallel, resemblance, ringer, semblance, sham, simulacrum,
simulation, emulation, takeoff, ripoff, transcription, travesty, Xerox, aping,
carbon copy, echo, match, mirror, knockoff, paraphrasing, parroting,
patterning, representation & replica & the rare ingenuine. The verb authenticate (verify, establish the
credibility of) dates from the 1650s and was from the Medieval Latin authenticatus, the past participle of authenticare, from the Late Latin authenticus; the form of use in the mid
seventeenth century was sometimes “render authentic”. The noun authenticity (the quality of being
authentic, or entitled; acceptance as to being true or correct) dates from the 1760
and replaced the earlier authentity (1650s)
& authenticness (1620s).
Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong". The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling. Ms Lohan’s lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.
Real & fake appears as simple and obvious a dichotomy
as black & white but humanity has managed over the millennia to create many
grey areas in many shades, thus the wealth of antonyms and synonyms for
“authentic”. Authentic now carries the
connotation of an authoritative confirmation (which can be formalized as a
process which culminates with the issue of a “certificate of authenticity”
although the usefulness of that of course depends on the issuing authority
being regarded as authentic. Genuine carries
a similar meaning but in a less formalized sense and in some fields (such as
the art market), something can simultaneously be genuine yet not authentic (a painting
might for example be a genuine seventeenth century oil on canvas work yet not
be the Rembrandt it was represented to be; it’s thus not authentic). The word real is probably the most simple
term of all and can often be used interchangeably but unless what’s being
described is unquestionable “real” in every sense, more nuanced words may be
needed. Veritable was from the Middle
French veritable, from the Old French veritable, from the Latin veritabilis,
from vēritās (truth), the construct being vērus (true; real) + -tās (the suffix used to form abstract nouns). The
traditional of use in English however means veritable had become an expression
of admiration (eg “she is a veritable saint”) rather than a measure of
truthfulness or authenticity.
Other nuances also organically have evolved. Authentic now implies the contents of the
thing in question correspond to the facts and are not fictitious while genuine
implies that whatever is being considered is something unadulterated from its
original form although what it contains may in some way be inauthentic. This is serviceable and as long as it’s not
used in a manner likely to mislead is a handy linguistic tool but as Henry
Fowler (1858–1933) noted in his A
Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), it was an artificial
distinction, “…illustrated by the fact
that, “genuine” having no verb of its own, “authenticate” serves for both”.
Degrees of authenticity: 2016 Jaguar XKSS (continuation series)
In 2016 Jaguar displayed the first of nine XKSS "continuation" models. In 1957, Jaguar had planned a run of 25 XKSSs which were road-going conversions of the Le Mans-winning D-type (1954-1956). Such things were possible in those happier, less regulated times. However, nine of the cars earmarked for export to North America were lost in fire so only 16 were ever completed. These nine, using the serial numbers allocated in 1957 are thus regarded as a "continuation of the original run" to completion, Jaguar insisting it is not "cloning itself". The project was well-received and the factory subsequent announced it would also continue the production run of the lightweight E-Types, again using the allocated but never absorbed ID numbers. Other manufacturers, including Aston Martin, have embarked on their own continuation programmes and at a unit cost in excess of US$1 million, it's a lucrative business.
In the upper (or at least the most obsessional) reaches
of the collector car market, the idea of “authenticity” is best expressed as “originality”. As early as the 1950s when the market began
to the process of assuming its present form, originality was valued because
many of the pre-war machines first to attract interest (Bentley, Rolls-Royce,
Lagonda et al from the UK, Duisenberg, Stutz, Cadillac et al from the US and
Mercedes-Benz, Isotta Fraschini, Bugatti et al from Europe) had over the years
receive different coachwork from that which was originally supplied. At the time however, the contemporary records
suggest that if a rakish new body had replaced something dowdy, it was a matter
for comment rather than objection. Nor
were replacement engines and transmissions thought objectionable as long as
they replicated the originals, there then being an understanding things wear out. Those mechanical components were however
among the first to come to the attention of the originality police and
“matching numbers” became a thing, every stamped component with a serial number
(engine blocks & heads, transmission cases, differential housings etc)
which could be verified against factory records, made a car more collectable
and thus more valuable. It was a matter
of originality which came to matter, not functionality which mattered; a newer,
better engine detracted from the value.
In some cases originality was allowed to be a shifting concept
especially with vehicles used in competition; if a Ferrari was found to be on
its third engine, that was fine as long as each swap was performed, in period,
by the factory or its racing team.
An authentic 1968 Chevrolet SS427. Because Chevrolet was during the 1960s somewhat lax in recording the exact details of the exact configuration of the cars as they left the assembly line, it can be difficult to verify what's an authentic Chevrolet SS and what's not. Quite a few Impalas and others have been modified and represented as what they're not and it can take an expert to tell the difference and that difference can be worth tens of thousands of dollars. Fortunately, there are many experts.
That exception
aside, it’s now very different and, all else being equal, the most authentic
collectable of its type is the one most original. These days collectors will line up their
possessions in rows to be judged by “certified judges” who, clipboards in hand
will peak and poke, ticking or crossing the boxes as they go. They’re prepared to concede the air in the
tyres, the fuel in the tank and the odd speck of dust on the carpet may not be
what was there when first the thing left the factory but points will be
deducted for offenses such as incorrect screw heads, a hose clap perhaps being
installed clockwise rather than anti-clockwise.
Sometimes a variation from the original can’t be detected, even by a
certified judge. If a component (without
a verifiable serial number) has been replaced with a genuine factory part
number, if done properly that will often get a tick whereas a reproduction part
from a third-party manufacturer will often have some barely discernible difference
and thus get a cross. Given the money which
churns around the market, there’s a bit of an informal industry in faking
authenticity and with some vehicles it is actually technically possible exactly
to take a mundane version of something and emulate a more desirable model; the
difference in value potentially in the millions. In some cases however, even if technically
possible, it may be functionally not: If it’s notorious that only ten copies
were produced of a certain model and all have for decades been accounted for, it’s
not plausible to possess and eleventh. However, there are instances where the
combination of (1) the factory not maintaining the necessary records and (2)
the vehicle itself not being fitted with the requisite stampings or
identification plates to determine exactly what options may originally have
been fitted.
The matter of
authenticity is obviously important in the art market. Usually the critical factor is the identity
of the artist. In May 1945, immediately
after the liberation from Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, the authorities
arrested Dutch national Han van Meegeren (1889–1947) and charged him with
collaborating with the enemy, a capital crime.
Evidence had emerged that van Meegeren had during World War II sold Vermeer's Christ with the Woman Taken in
Adultery to Hermann Göring (1893–1946; prominent Nazi 1922-1945,
Reichsmarschall 1940-1945). His defense
was as novel as it was unexpected: He claimed the painting was not a Vermeer
but rather a forgery by his own hand, pointing out that as he had traded the
fake for over a hundred other Dutch paintings seized earlier by the Reich
Marshal and he was thus a national hero rather than a Nazi collaborator. With a practical demonstration of his skill,
added to his admission of having forged five other fake "Vermeers"
during the 1930s, as well as two "Pieter de Hoochs" all of which had
shown up on European art markets since 1937, he convinced the court and was
acquitted but was then, as he expected, charged with forgery for which he
received a one year sentence, half the maximum available to the court. He died in prison of heart failure, brought
on by years of drug and alcohol abuse.
His
skills with brush and paint aside, Van Meegeren was able successfully to pass
off his 1930s fakes as those of the seventeenth century painter of the Dutch
baroque, Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675), because of the four years he spent
meticulously testing the techniques by which as a new painting could be made to
look centuries old. The breakthrough was
getting the oil-based paints thoroughly to harden, a process which naturally
occurs over fifty-odd years. His solution
was to mix the pigments with the synthetic resin Bakelite, instead of oil. For his canvas, he used a genuine but
worthless seventeenth-century painting and removed as much of the picture as
possible, scrubbing carefully with pumice and water, taking the utmost care not
to lose the network of cracks, the existence of which would play a role in
convincing many expert appraisers they were authentic Vermeers. Once dry, he baked the canvas and rubbed a
carefully concocted mix of ink and dust into the edges of the cracks, emulating
the dirt which would, over centuries, accumulate.
Modern x-ray techniques and chemical analysis
mean such tricks can no longer succeed but, at the time, so convincing were his
fakes that no doubts were expressed and the dubious Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery became Göring's most prized
acquisition, quite something given the literally thousands of pieces of art he
looted from Europe. One of the Allied
officers who interrogated Göring in Nuremberg prison prior to his trial
(1945-1946) recorded that the expression on his face when told "his
Vermeer" was a fake suggested that "...for the first time Göring realized there really was evil in this world".
So the
identity of the painter matters, indeed, between 1968-2014, there was a
standing institution called the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP), an initiative
of the Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (the NOW; the Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research), the charter of which included authenticating all works attributed
to the artist (Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606-1669). That was a conventional approach to authentication
but there are others. In the West
there’s a long standing distinction between “high art” and “popular art” but
not all cultures have that distinction and when the output of artists from
those cultures is commoditised, what matters is ethnicity. In Australia, the distinctive paintings
categorized as “indigenous art” have become popular and are a defined market
segment and what determines their authenticity is that they are legitimately
and exclusively the work of indigenous artists.
The styles, of which dot painting is the best known, are technically not
challenging to execute and thus easy to replicate by anyone and this has caused
where non-indigenous hands have been found (or alleged) to be involved in the
process.
In
1997, Elizabeth Durack (1915–2000), a Western Australian disclosed that the
much acclaimed works of the supposed indigenous artist “Eddie Burrup” had
actually been painted by her in her studio, Eddie Burrup her pseudonym. To make matters worse, prior to her
revelation, some of the works had been included in exhibitions of Indigenous
Australian art. Although noted since the
1980s, the phrase “cultural appropriation” wasn’t then widely used outside of
academia of activist communities but what Ms Durack did was a classic example
of a representative of a dominant culture appropriating aspects of marginalized
or minority cultures for some purpose.
Sometimes (perhaps intentionally) misunderstood, the critical part of cultural
appropriation is the relationship between the hegemonic and the marginal; a
white artist creating work in the style of an indigenous, colonized people and
representing it in a manner which suggests it’s the product of an indigenous
artist is CA. Condoleezza Rice (b 1954;
US secretary of state 2005-2009) playing Chopin on a Steinway is not; that’s
cultural assimilation. Once the truth
was known, the works were removed from many galleries where they had hung and
presumably the critical acclaim they had once received was withdrawn. Both responses were of course correct. Had Ms Durack represented the works as her
own and signed them thus that would have been cultural appropriation and people
could have responded as they wished but to represent them as the works of
someone with a name all would interpret as that of an indigenous artist was
both cultural appropriation and deceptive & misleading conduct with all
that that implies.
More
recently, there have been accusations white staff employed in a commercial
gallery where indigenous artists are employed to create paintings have been
influenced, assisted or interfered with (depending on one’s view) in the
production process. According to the
stories run in the Murdoch press, a white staff member was filmed suggesting
some modification to an artist although whether this was thought to be on
artistic grounds or at attempt to make something more resemble what sells best
isn’t clear. However, in a sense the
motive doesn’t matter because the mere intervention detracts from the authenticity
of the product, based as it is not on the inherent artistic merit but on the
artist being indigenous. In that the
case was conceptually little different from Göring’s “Vermeer” which for years
countless experts in fine art had acclaimed as a masterpiece while it hung in
Carinhall, an opinion not repeated as soon as its dubious provenance was
revealed. Nor is it wholly dissimilar to
the case of the replica 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO which is essentially a carbon copy
of one of the 40-odd originals made (indeed it was in some ways technical
superior) yet it is worth US$1.2 million while the record price for a genuine
one was US$70 million. So for a product
to be thought authentic can depend on (1) that it was created by a certain
individual, (2) that it was created by a member of a certain defined ethnicity
or (3) that it was created by a certain institution.
In art,
authenticity is precious in many senses.
Salvator Mundi, the critics admit, is
not an exceptional painting but once authenticated as the work of Leonardo, it created its own exceptionalism, in 2017 becoming the most
expensive painting ever sold at public auction, attracting US$450 when offered
by Christie's in New York. The criteria
for assessing the works of indigenous artists is also beneficial for them
because unlike mainstream art, they’re not assessed as good or bad but merely
as authentically indigenous or not.
That’s why there are no bad reviews of indigenous art or performance because the
concept is (1) irrelevant, (2) such an idea is alien to indigenous peoples
in Australia and (3) if expressed by white critics would represent the
imposition of a Western cultural construct on a marginalized group. Dot paintings and such are marketed through
the structures of the art market because physically they’re similar objects
(size & weight) to other paintings but they’re really modern, mass-produced
artefacts which depend on provenance as much as a Ferrari, Leonardo or Vermeer.
No comments:
Post a Comment