Authenticity in Action

Zay Amsbury speaks of Authenticity and while the post is interesting I think there is a slight confusion as to the gravitational locus of that Authentic moment. When he says "Whenever you experience theater, however deadly it may or may not be, it is the experience you are having," I totally agree with him. Yet it is the application of that to 'Theatre-as-thing' where I take issue. For his own argument points not to 'Theatre' but to experience. And yes there is an argument to be made that all experience is authentic, though I do not agree. All experience has the potential for authenticity. But these are two different ideas and the distinction is one of greatest import.

The line of reasoning that Amsbury follows derives from Walter Benjamin and his notions of authentic art. However The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is coming from a place where the medium of film is a novelty. In fact the explosive force of photography alone had barely been comprehended by the time film took these potentials to a whole new level. This is important because the modes of production have shifted radically from a national or semi-global economy to a truly interconnected global economy. This transition in the means of production is important not because it changes the 'thing-in-itself' but rather because it alters our own internal orientation to the world and as a result the entire notion of authenticity shifts.

It is not possible to think of experiential authenticity outside a historical context. That would simply be an absurdity. The historicity of experience is in fact tied intimately with the very root of authenticity. I would go so far as to propose that the temporal historic occasioning of experience is the root of the authentic itself not a mere relation. The authentic experience of ancient Greece can literally not be recreated in a modern context.

Calling Greek plays 'plays' is like calling the Libretto for Madame Butterfly an Opera. It is not. Rather it is a text. The music is left out, just as we have no extant musical texts from Greek drama. The first Operas were attempts to reconnect with the Ancient Greek modes of theatrical production. Song and speech, rhythm and melody. But this quickly transformed into a new art form of its own. The historicity of its temporal nature forced it to evolve and adapt to the given circumstances of culture. This is why the form, like all art forms do and must adapt.

Contemporary modes of production are such that it is possible to faithfully recreate once unique cultural experiences. There are slight variations, but given our orientation towards the authentic, these differences are immaterial. Virtual reality has overtaken objective reality and we now live in a world where those old distinctions become less and less relevant. The digital life is as authentic as the physical life. There are drawbacks just as there are benefits, and I am in no way passing moral judgement here, but the fact remains that there has been a substantial transformation in Humanity's mode of existence due to the transition from an industiral to a post-industrial economy. And this transformation encapsulates the arguments of Benjamin and places them within a specific socio-historical context that we label the 'past.'

But I digress. The initial intent of this was to look at the gravitational locus of authenticity and I would say it is in the experience. The experience of the audience is important and they must do their own work. But of more central concern is the authenticity of the artist. Where are they coming from? Is the act of creation an authentic act, or is it trapped in modes of thought that we have already moved beyond? Benjamin's use of authenticity is further problematic in that it fails to take account of the living quality of Art. He is interested in art-as-object, while my concern is Living Art. Art as verb rather than noun. This is the primary concern in my exploration of authenticity. It is a question of the orientation of the soul and does not concern itself with the literality of 'things.'