Authenticity in Material Culture

I have just come out of a guest lecture given by Nelson Graburn of Berkeley University. He is well known for his ethnographic research with the Inuit in Northern Canada, particularly concerned with their art. The lecture today was entitled "Anthropological Experiments in Authenticity: Inuit Ethnoaesthetics and audience evaluations" and looked at how one can know the authenticity of art and what factors should decide it.

The problem of authenticity when looking in particular at Inuit art is that the sculptures they create were originally designed for sale to westerners and white Canadians. The Inuit were encouraged and directed as to what to create by Jim Houston, himself an artist, who told them to make their art bigger and shinier as this would be more appealing. Clearly this art cannot be authentic, it reflects only what the Inuit sculptors think will sell better, not their own traditions or artistic ideas.

However, this was over 50 years ago. The art that is created today, whilst stemming from Houston's original ideas has taken on a new symbolic meaning. Making such sculptures links people to their past, the depictions are often of traditional Inuit figures or hunting. These can be shown to children to teach them about their heritage. In this way the art is authentic, even if it is not completely traditional it reflects the Inuit as they are now, whilst still linking them to their past. If they were to try and recreate past arts or sculptures then surely this would be fake.

I also want to draw your attention to an article by Les Field, entitled "Four kinds of authenticity?
Regarding Nicaraguan pottery in Scandinavian museums, 2006–08," which was published in the most recent edition of American Ethnologist. For Field, there are 4 types of authenticity

1. Ethnographic Authenticity - that the object fits a particular cultural group's identity.
2. Authentic Original High Art - looking at the individual maker and their reputation.
3. Engineered Authenticity - where the individual maker is invisible but the product is designed by a team who set strict parameters.
4. Brand-Name Authenticity - similar to '3' but the name of the design team is most important.
   

I think that Field has come up with an interesting way of separating out the different ways that people look for authenticity, after all it depends on the object or one's use for it as to what determines authenticity.

However, for me the real interest in this debate is not whether objects/art is authentic or not but that this clearly demonstrates who fluid culture is. When people want to buy Inuit art they want something that reflects the traditional way of life, never mind whether people still live like that any more. So in creating this the art takes on a new role, not as a symbol of Inuit life but as something that links the past, the present and the future. For me that is where the real interest lies.

If you want to find more then I would recommend:

Anything by Nelson Graburn.

Field, L. (2009) Four kinds of authenticity? Regarding Nicaraguan pottery in Scandinavian museums, 2006–08. American Ethnologist, 36: 507 - 520.