 |
 |
I'm sorry, my eyesight is failing. On 13 May 2018 at 18:23, Jamie McKendrick < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Luke, that’s Jaime not Jamie - though I’d second her notion that > ‘authenticity’ is a troublesome (and often overbearing) term both in > politics and aesthetics. Maybe because of that, it’s worth discussing. > Trilling in his Sincerity and Authenticity makes a historicised > distinction between the two words but though I read the book ages ago I > can’t now recall anything but the vaguest contours of the argument. Anyone > here with a better memory? > Jamie > > Sent from my iPad > > On 13 May 2018, at 18:03, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > May I politely disagree, Jamie? I mean isn't authenticity arguably one of > the more philosophically robust aesthetic terms? It could be more difficult > to recognize than e.g. pretense, or sincerity,, but, well I'm reminded of > an intro to Critical Theory I've read that suggests ideological critique > involves spending time with its ideologues, enjoying the local narcotic, > etc.. > > Cheers, > Luke > > On 13 May 2018 at 17:29, Jaime Robles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I too find authenticity a troubling term, Tim. Not only because it seems >> antithetical to the basic concept of craft in art, but also because I’m not >> sure HOW or even WHY it applies to art. I can see the point of it in legal >> and political discussions, and even there it seems a shaky criterion. Part >> of the pro-Trump follower's affirmation of their preferred leader is that >> he is authentic. He says what he believes, etc. (little of which is true, >> of course). And much of Bernie Sanders appeal (v. Clinton) was around >> issues of authenticity. Too often just sticking to one’s perceptions >> (accurate or not) in a loud and insistent way is seen as authenticity, even >> honesty. It’s also undeniable that their followers feel loyalty, and that’s >> authentic. Though what engenders that feeling may be of questionable >> ethics. And when talking about authenticity we are talking ethics. >> >> I think it’s something I’d prefer to cross of the lists of artistic >> criteria, simply because authenticity lies, like beauty, in the eye of the >> beholder. >> >> If one has a feeling it’s authentic, period. >> >> How, or if one even should express that feeling accurately, is another >> issue. I believe that when someone says So’n’So is authentic, it means, >> simply, "I understand what that person felt; they have conveyed it >> accurately for me”. >> >> >> J >> >> >> jaimerobles.com >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________ >> >> QS: Let’s return to poetics. >> JR: When did we leave? >> >> —From the conversation between Quinta Slef and Joan Retallack, The >> Poethical Wager >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 11, 2018, at 3:44 AM, Tim Allen <0000002899e7d020-dmarc-reques >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Yes exactly Luke, the 'how' is still missing, at least in the sense of >> describing a 'how' that was special to Riley. I used the word 'authentic' >> because of its innate problems - it is one of the most difficult terms to >> use when applied to the arts, but nevertheless I think my use of it in the >> context of Riley is 'authentic'. >> >> Perceptions of and identifying authenticity in music is an even more >> contentious - the process that leads from authentic feeling and expression >> first to model/form then to simulacrum and finally to soulless golem (e.g. >> x factor or whatever) is almost impossible to untangle. >> >> Cheers >> >> Tim >> >> On 11 May 2018, at 02:03, Luke wrote: >> >> I'm still missing a *how*. No-one is innately authentic, so how does one >> go about it? Incidentally. I was recently listening to Kurt Cobain, of >> Nirvana, ha, and it struck me so, also. So not limited to poetry, anyway! >> >> >> >> >