From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 16-MAY-1993
14:18:29.24
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: Authenticity, cont'd
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01GY8VC4ZBL091VR8X@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 16 May 1993 14:18 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 8787 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sun,
16 May 1993 14:18 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1753; Sun, 16 May 1993 14:11:56 -0400
Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 20:00:49 +0201
From: Uli.Brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Authenticity, cont'd
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01GY8VC4ZBL091VR8X@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: artcrit%yorkvm1.bitnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ben: I don't know exactly what I have to imagine a situational
or conditional meaning of authenticity would be (like). If you
say something is "authentic" AND YOU MEAN IT don't you say at the
same time
a) that it is an attribute of that something (and not of
your perception or in the situation) and
b) that it makes this something very much independent of
any secondary intentions that might be implicated.
Which is to say, authenticity just presupposes that
the thing (the work of art is now what I am talking
about) has not been made just to trick you into
believing something specific but rather that the thing
exists on its own, in its own right; part of which is
due to the fact that the creator of this thing somehow
transcended her/himself in making it, so, lost
control over it and was rather created than creating.
Of course, this represents art in a certain paradigm,
which is, I think, the modern one. The point is that
authenticity means that there is a basic and genuine
identity of the thing with itself.
This is interesting indeed. So what happens if you have
established the thing there as authentic? You made it ready for
identification. First you made it into something like the
Absolute Other (no intention-ality towards yourself) and then you
make the leap and travel (imaginarily) into this thing. To make
it yours. Is that a situational definition of authenticity? But,
hey, it never really is the Absolute Other. Because you named it
as authentic. So it really has a tag on it saying: "hey there,
I am the Authentic. You're not supposed to read me as a message.
That is because a message can be easily misunderstood. Which is
because there's always a sender and a receiver and sometimes
there are even garbled charact i Sghi v jk in between. But I,
I only have ONE meaning."
There we have another topic, namely, why is talk (or speech, or
language) so important to ART? Some artist don't want to talk
about their art at all (because suddenly there would be more than
one meaning and control lost) or talk excessively about art (to
save it, themselves and the world).
As you say Ben, I should be rather at work. Enough for this time.
Uli
PS: there's this thing about Germany. We could chat about that
privately but I don't have access to BITNET, so your occasionally
surfacing e-address is of no use to me. I need an INTERNET
address (looks something like U20BXM1%NIU.BITNET@***.***.edu
("edu" being an informed guess, *** being the sign for "no
informed guess possible")
14:18:29.24
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: Authenticity, cont'd
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01GY8VC4ZBL091VR8X@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 16 May 1993 14:18 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 8787 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sun,
16 May 1993 14:18 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1753; Sun, 16 May 1993 14:11:56 -0400
Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 20:00:49 +0201
From: Uli.Brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Authenticity, cont'd
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01GY8VC4ZBL091VR8X@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: artcrit%yorkvm1.bitnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ben: I don't know exactly what I have to imagine a situational
or conditional meaning of authenticity would be (like). If you
say something is "authentic" AND YOU MEAN IT don't you say at the
same time
a) that it is an attribute of that something (and not of
your perception or in the situation) and
b) that it makes this something very much independent of
any secondary intentions that might be implicated.
Which is to say, authenticity just presupposes that
the thing (the work of art is now what I am talking
about) has not been made just to trick you into
believing something specific but rather that the thing
exists on its own, in its own right; part of which is
due to the fact that the creator of this thing somehow
transcended her/himself in making it, so, lost
control over it and was rather created than creating.
Of course, this represents art in a certain paradigm,
which is, I think, the modern one. The point is that
authenticity means that there is a basic and genuine
identity of the thing with itself.
This is interesting indeed. So what happens if you have
established the thing there as authentic? You made it ready for
identification. First you made it into something like the
Absolute Other (no intention-ality towards yourself) and then you
make the leap and travel (imaginarily) into this thing. To make
it yours. Is that a situational definition of authenticity? But,
hey, it never really is the Absolute Other. Because you named it
as authentic. So it really has a tag on it saying: "hey there,
I am the Authentic. You're not supposed to read me as a message.
That is because a message can be easily misunderstood. Which is
because there's always a sender and a receiver and sometimes
there are even garbled charact i Sghi v jk in between. But I,
I only have ONE meaning."
There we have another topic, namely, why is talk (or speech, or
language) so important to ART? Some artist don't want to talk
about their art at all (because suddenly there would be more than
one meaning and control lost) or talk excessively about art (to
save it, themselves and the world).
As you say Ben, I should be rather at work. Enough for this time.
Uli
PS: there's this thing about Germany. We could chat about that
privately but I don't have access to BITNET, so your occasionally
surfacing e-address is of no use to me. I need an INTERNET
address (looks something like U20BXM1%NIU.BITNET@***.***.edu
("edu" being an informed guess, *** being the sign for "no
informed guess possible")