The question, as originally posed by Kevin Tucker, sought to establish a
difference in authenticity between a mass-produced design object created
during its designer's lifetime, and one changed in subtle ways by being
produced years after the designer's death.

The point is, be it designer or fine artist supervising installation
versions of a work (with the possible exception of Sol Lewitt whose wall
drawings would actually be less authentic if he were present at their
making), that after an artist/designer's death a greater degree of
authenticity is ascribed to work created during his/her lifetime than work
created posthumously.  While an artist might have authorized the
re-creation of his work, and theoretically there should be no difference
between the experience of these and earlier versions, I think that in
reality people visiting a museum want to connect with the root sources of
human endeavor.  When they see "1995" on an Eames chair that was designed
in 1955, or view a reproduction of an El Lissitzky "Proun" room, they will
be less fulfilled than if given the opportunity to see an original. They
want to come away with the feeling that their insights have been unmediated
by interventions subsequent to those of the original artist and will
ascribe more value to that kind of experience than to one which is the
result of viewing later re-productions.  They want some of the thrill a
scholar gets when reading from an ancient manuscript instead of a
contemporary anthology.

At one extreme of this issue is the intact and untouched archeological site
full of pure authenticity, and at the other extreme is main street
Disneyland, creating an experience of the past entirely through
re-creation.  Sometimes museums have no choice but to re-create portions of
the past (Lissitzky), but since they are museums and not amusement parks
they should respond to as rigorous a standard of authenticity as possible.


>This is in response to the discussion among Stephen Nowlin and others who
>wrote about fabrications and refabrications.
>_________________________________________
>
>If there is a doubt, maybe what matters is that the museum lets the visitor
>know how the piece was fabricated (e.g., after the artist's death; without
>the artist's over seeing the fabrication, etc.)? ...unless the curatorial
>point is to fool or confuse (and I could imagine that being the point, I am
>not intending to be nasty).
>
>Mindy Lehrman Cameron
>[log in to unmask]

Stephen Nowlin
Vice President
Director, Alyce de Roulet Williamson Gallery
Art Center College of Design
1700 Lida Street
Pasadena, California 91103  USA
(818)396-2397vox (818)405-9104fax
[log in to unmask]