A definition of Authentic:

“Of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.” Oxford Dictionaries[1]

From this definition authenticity is “not a copy”. This could be interpreted that creative work can be authentic as long as it does not copy.

During the early development of the Modernism movement photographer Paul Strand captured abstract angles (as inspired by the Constructivism movement) that created a Utopian effect, from this Artist Edward Hopper was influenced by this style and produced paintings with a similar effect.

These examples are relevant today because modernism as a principle strips away old convention to the bare bones of simple style in pursuit of making new, this still holds value in modern practice, we see these principles in our everyday lives with the use of abstraction and sans serif design.

The argument to Hoppers authenticity could be the differences in subject matter and media. He was influenced by an artists work but interpreted with his own style and ideas to create an original concept.

Strand, P. (1915). Wall Street. [Platinum palladium print] New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; Gift of Michael E. Hoffman in honor of Sondra Gilman. [2]

 Hopper, E. (1942). Nighthawks. [Oil on canvas] Chicago: The Art institute of Chicago. [3]

However it can be disputed that elements of one work have been copied, the specificity of what makes a copy is open to interpretation; one definition being “A thing made to be similar or identical to another” Oxford Dictionaries [4]. If Hoppers Nighthawk shares similarities to Strands work such as the lighting contrasts and abstract subject matter but is different in media then is it truly authentic?

I think it is impossible to be truly authentic; we learn from history with even new ideas and styles can be related to another even subconsciously in some way.

References