Of French Journalism, Spanish museums, American art and Jewish Marxism.

Pretty much every paradox that came up in our class discussion of authenticity in heritage is contained within this article in Le Monde that lays out the story of a 30-ton steel construction by the father of all 30-ton steel constructions, Richard Serra. Created in the 1970-s for a Spanish museum, the steel construction was eventually given to an art stockpiling firm, because the museum did not have the finances to maintain it and was out of public view until the commissioning museum of Reina-Sophia wanted to reinstall it.

But, gasp, surprise, shriek, the installation had disappeared.

The solution: have Richard Serra himself build a carbon copy of the work and install that one.

Cue deep philosophical dilemma(tm).

Is the sculpture currently on display at the Reina-Sophia the copy or the original? It is made by the same artist, he did not get paid anything beyond the cost of construction, there is even a precedent (sculptures of Auguste Rodin's works made of casts that the artist produced are considered originals) so technically there is no reason not to call it the original.

Except of course, it's not the same installation.

This case shows how the term 'authenticity' is indeed a very fluid one. We call the sculptures made of Rodin's casts originals, but for some reason we have doubts about Equal-Parallel/Guernica-Bengasi. Another example is photography, where originals, no matter how they are defined, are in the end already copies of the original negatives. For instance, this webpage defines an "original photograph" as one that was developed at the year of its taking, though there is no real reason to set that line at two years, five years, or twenty five years - after all, what does it matter when a negative is transferred to a positive, the result is still as much a copy in 1970 as it was in 1930.

So where do we draw a line between an original and a copy? Walter Benjamin would answer, that before the age of mechanical reproduction, it was based on the "aura" - the duration and history associated with an object. Today, "To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility. From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the “authentic” print makes no sense. But the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice – politics."

However, he is wrong, because people still ask for "authentic" prints of photos and authentic mechanical reproductions of 30-ton steel slabs. While I would dismiss Benjamin's Marxist dream of a world where all art is based on politics, his idea of the "aura" warrants consideration. To take the idea a bit further - it would seem that through ritual, authority and persuasion, the "aura" of an original can be transferred to an object that is essentially a copy, but in a relation so close to the original that the reality can for all intents and purposes be dismissed. For that reason, people have no trouble recognizing sculptures made of Rodin's casts as originals and for that reason I would also consider Serra's Equal-Parallel/Guernica-Bengasi 2.0 an original.

Though I admit, Le Monde's journalist poses a difficult question: what if the original shows up?
[edit from 10/25]

I am tempted to answer to that: 20 years down the road, it will hardly matter. The history constructed around the object is complex and intriguing enough that through either public opinion or a consensus of art historians, both objects will be declared "originals", which they for all intents and purposes, are. It seems to me, that amount of suspension of disbelief is low enough here, for people to accept both objects as 'true', should the other one ever reappear. Certainly, if they could do it with Rodin's casts...