Andrew Taylor on the Business of Arts & Culture
www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/

---

home (mobile version) | about this weblog | about Andrew Taylor

---

What's ''authentic''?
  Posted: February 5, 2008
  [ view a fully formatted version of this post ]

Some interesting threads about ''authenticity'' are tracking around the web, many in response to the new Pine & Gilmore book on the subject (haven't read it yet, but it's in ''the stack''). Included in the thread are posts by Grant McCracken, then Sam Ford, and then Sam Ford again.

At issue is what we all mean by ''authentic,'' which seems to be a placeholder for lots of different variables -- clarity of purpose, lack of pretense, sense of genuine care and attention, endurance over time.

McCracken's original post was in response to one reader who blasted Unilever for promoting their ''campaign for real beauty'' through Dove soap, while also blatantly objectifying women with their ''Axe effect'' campaign for young men. The assumption was that such conflicting messages made both ''inauthentic.''

Says McCracken, get over it:

This is precisely what is wrong with the authenticity argument now being promoted by Gilmore and Pine. In fact, brands have no native voice. They may have a brand heritage. Some brand meanings may come more easily than others. But there is nothing a brand must say, and nothing, within limits, it mustn't say. Brands are designed to be exemplars of responsiveness. This means we may not insist on what they "really" mean, or what they "must" say. The very point of the exercise, as this is carried forward by branding, marketing, capitalism, and a dynamic society, hangs in the balance.

Since arts organizations are often perceived (or perceive themselves) as havens of authentic expression, it might be worth a moment to define, exactly, what that means.