Talk:Authenticity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Authenticity makes people like you, trust you-and follow you", write Jack and Judy Welch in the article entitled "What do great leaders have in common? They'are authentic", which appeared in FORTUNE of April 9th,2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.161.118 (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 

==Musicology?==????????????!--72.199.248.147 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)--72.199.248.147 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)--72.199.248.147 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Strike-through textStrike-through textSubscript text
--> -->
Is authenticity, when discussed in musicology, really a seperate concept requiring an Authenticity (musicology) article? Hyacinth 11:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I decided not and changed it to Authenticity (art), but I still don't think that is general enough. It is the same concept when you think a statement or outfit is inauthentic as when when a song or style of painting is. Hyacinth 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To be added:

Simon Frith (2004, p.28) argues that the evaluation of authenticity in music is incoherent. "'Inauthentic,'...is a term which may be applied evaluatively within genres which are straight-forwardly, cynically, commercial," such as Eurodisco or "TV pop idols...It's as if people expect music to mean what it says, however cynical that meaning, and music can be heard as being false to its own premises." As examples he gives Madonna and Eminem.
  • Washburne, Christopher J. and Derno, Maiken (eds.) (2004). Bad Music: The Music We Love to Hate. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415943663.
    • Frith, Simon. "What is Bad Music".

Hyacinth 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are three kinds of authenticity: the experience of art (or whatever, as you are right, it is far more general) as being non-commercial and sincere; the use of appropriate objects in recreating something; and something being what it purports to be. I don't think any of the links discuss the first of these (although what is to be added does, and Authenticity (art) would). The second is the Authenticity (reenactment) and Authentic performance meaning. The third relates to Art forgery, Archaeological forgery, Provenance, and Authentication. The three are essentially (1) making something new perceived as real, (2) making something everyone knows is fake as close to the real as possible, (3) making something not known to be fake as real as possible in order to fool people. If this page stays as a disambiguation, it would make sense to group these into those sections (the Authenticity (psychology) and Authenticity (philosophy) would go somewhere else, I think; I don't understand them well enough). Authenticity (art) strikes me as a misleading name, as I would be far more likely to think how it related to the third category than the first. That said, I can't really think of a better name. Rigadoun 14:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


That's stuped!

Related to culture?[edit]

I found a curious reference to the word Authenticity on the Occupation of Japan wiki page. The usage of the word in found in the following section lifted from the Occupation of Japan wiki page.

`There is an ongoing discussion regarding the concept of "authenticity" as experienced by the generation raised under American military occupation. Masaya Ito et al. compared different generations of Japanese and found no difference in the perception of authenticity.`

Using the meaning offered on this page for Authenticity the meaning is vague when applied to the Occupation of Japan page. Can anyone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogaijin (talkcontribs) 20:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)