Inside Out

We keep referring to "authenticity" and the "authentic experience" as if it's a given, particularly in relation to art. What exactly is this authentic experience? Ironically, it seems to me, the article in the link refers to authenticity as the "seeming" of reality. Something is perceived to be real. That's fine - in many ways it's the entire premise upon which theatre performance is based (except when it's deliberately not, of course - but even then it still acknowledges the standing belief of the perception of realness in performance, even as it contradicts it).

Still, why must authenticity (in art, not antiques or jewelry or such) be determined by anything outside of the individual audience? Isn't any experience an "authentic" experience? (How can it be anything else?) Must the experience be entirely judged by the intent of the artist? What if the artist has not made their intent clear? How is authenticity to be determined then?

"Mechanical representation" of a piece of art (Internet, postcard, book, etc...) may make the work more accessible, less exclusive, but it will also make the experience/perception/reception of the art different than it would be in person. Which is to say, why is that experience less authentic? The engagement is with a representation of the art, and the experience should be considered authentic to that type of engagement.


Consider: if a piece of art is designed to be encountered "mechanically", would a "live" presentation then become the mechanical representation?