“Art and Authenticity,” by Nelson Goodman. A Short Response
The matter of authenticity in art may seem like a superficial issue at first glance. It becomes relevant when looked at from an institutional perspective or from a collector’s point of view: it is a matter of pedigree that involves large sums of money. I believe the aesthetic experience is linked to authenticity when a work of art is imbued with historical importance and society considers it a matter of heritage. An example of this is when we hear collectors or galleries speak of “the school of (Rembrandt, can Eyck, etc.) or the masters themselves.
Advances in technology now allow institutions to analyze works of art much more accurately and comprehensively. Authenticity, and its implications, therefore have to be addressed from a more qualitative perspective. Although personally, as long as the work of art offers me an aesthetic experience of a higher degree, I would say it is a strong piece— as understood along the lines of aesthetic validity than authenticity— regardless of the hand and mind behind its execution.
Museums swap original paintings for copies in order to protect their valuable works of art. Spectators get a close enough approximation to the intent of the original piece and have a valid aesthetic experience. What is the importance of authenticity here? Why should we concern ourselves with a name over the enjoyment of a work of art? Why do we need to feel like we are directly linked to a time in the past or to a particular individual who we consider a ‘genius’? Is not the experience of aesthetic appreciation the reason we go to museums and galleries? Why should this experience be less if one hand that painted it is as praise-worthy as the other? As long as the quality of execution is the same, it should not make a difference. Moreover, it becomes a moot point now that we have been made aware that large portions of important collections are fakes. We will not be told which are originals and which were forgeries bought by these institutions because it would damage the reputation of the so-called “experts.” I don’t pretend to offer an answer to the issue. Rather, I raise the questions I consider essential for artists and collectors to discuss. Historians have the advantage of hindsight and will clarify many of these issues in due time but as long as clear regulation doesn’t exist for the art market, it will continue to operate outside of the realm of aesthetics only to be driven by market trends and corruption.