Questioning Authenticity
Facsimile or Authentic? This is the age old question of mechanical reproduction and authorship and authenticity and the list goes on and on. Art historians, curators, and scholars alike constantly ask these same questions of Eberlein, Dorner, and Giry even decades after. I have asked the same question, but to no avail. I myself have gone no further than any other scholar out there. This is a matter in which an opinion is each to their own.
Eberlein was on the side of complete disdain of reproduction and a gatekeeping, almost elitist, mentality to art itself. His analogies of a dog barking at a portrait of his master undermines the validity of the portrait, and even is a bad take on the idea of closeness of a reproduction. He compares the normal audience to a beast, placing himself on a pedestal. In addition, he goes on to state that there is no universal right to the arts and those who wish to experience art must earn it. But through what means are we to earn the right to art? What is an artist’s goal if not to share their art? Who is going to see it?
Eberlein is the living being of the resistance to inevitable change, a man stuck in the tradition and comfort of the old ways. The one point that did pique my interest was the idea that the only reproduction that is authentic is the one of the viewer’s mind. Of course this is true, but if Eberlein values the opinion of the viewer in this sense, he should also respect the view of the other side. If Eberlein was living today, he would definitely have an immense culture shock at what the world has come to, a large jumble of artists “borrowing” from other previous and current artists.
On the other hand, Dorner brings a much more grounded and contemporary perspective compared to Eberlein. He believes that there is a need for reproduction, from both the artist and the viewer’s point of view. The historical experience of the art itself is separable from the artist’s ideas. His comparisons from hearing someone give a lecture versus reading it afterwards bring an awareness that is non-apparent in Eberlein. Dorner states that the facsimile reproduction is able to convey up to 99% of the effect of the original. If indistinguishable by the eye, I’d say that it would convey up to 99.9% of the effect of the original. For some reason, that .1% of difference only comes after the viewer has found out that it is a reproduction, but without that knowledge, we lead a life of bliss through the unknown.
It seems as if the case of Giry, Bird in Space, asking the question of originality and authenticity lay in a place of ambiguity. The courts didn’t understand art and the art scholars didn’t understand the art. Bird in Space was a lifelong project, a 20 year art piece in the making and this was the reasoning used to display its originality. But what are we to find in this idea of originality and authenticity against the facsimile reproduction. The Bird in Space was a set of different sculptures. Does the first sculpture constitute the original one? No? Yes? Maybe? Considering that they were being made concurrently, this idea of the first piece being more authentic is lost. Can this also apply against Eberleins idea of reproduction? Is the second copy any less authentic than the first made by the artist? To be honest, if reproduction can spread art, then I am for it, but if it’s being used to exploit or hurt an artist, I’m against it.
