The reality in which we live is one wherein a painting can be authentic all the while being deemed nothing more than a “clumsy pastiche”, or worse yet, one where that “clumsy pastiche” can be deemed inauthentic on faulty logic or as a result of ulterior motives. This is something I’ve not gripped entirely but rather am still working on grasping better.
I believe that the reason you are having trouble to grasp this is that you are talking about two different things. The one thing is art and the other is commerce. The reality is that art does not need authentication. It is experientially verified. The authentication factor is relevant only in the trading of certain works of art; or for historical, archelogical, sociological etc. reasons .
It is interesting to see, for contrast, the way art functions (or used to at least) in certain non western contexts where it has not been commodified to such an extend. Traditionally in some places in the east, artists did not sign their work. First of all it was a gesture that they did not create for personal gain but for the betterment of humanity, but also a recognition that the artwork, if real, should be able to stand on its own without the need (and distortion) of reputation.
It is in the same manner, that when unknown musicians really perform on the street, people are drawn as if mesmerised towards the sound. What they identify does not need authentication.
Haha, ok. I might have over romanticise my last sentence ;) let me be more specific (though even with these additions not really making justice to the depth of our subject):
It is in the same manner, that when unknown musicians really perform on the street (taking into account time, place and audience), people (that are not distracted and have an accordingly developed aesthetic sense) are drawn towards the sound. [Example]
It would also be interesting to check what role reputation (of the musician) instead of quality of performance played in your choice of example.
I will give you my perspective. You say:
I believe that the reason you are having trouble to grasp this is that you are talking about two different things. The one thing is art and the other is commerce. The reality is that art does not need authentication. It is experientially verified. The authentication factor is relevant only in the trading of certain works of art; or for historical, archelogical, sociological etc. reasons .
It is interesting to see, for contrast, the way art functions (or used to at least) in certain non western contexts where it has not been commodified to such an extend. Traditionally in some places in the east, artists did not sign their work. First of all it was a gesture that they did not create for personal gain but for the betterment of humanity, but also a recognition that the artwork, if real, should be able to stand on its own without the need (and distortion) of reputation.
It is in the same manner, that when unknown musicians really perform on the street, people are drawn as if mesmerised towards the sound. What they identify does not need authentication.
No, they’re not.
Haha, ok. I might have over romanticise my last sentence ;) let me be more specific (though even with these additions not really making justice to the depth of our subject):
It is in the same manner, that when unknown musicians really perform on the street (taking into account time, place and audience), people (that are not distracted and have an accordingly developed aesthetic sense) are drawn towards the sound. [Example]
It would also be interesting to check what role reputation (of the musician) instead of quality of performance played in your choice of example.