Ramblings about authenticity cont-d.

The case of the Reina-Sophia museum, while interesting in its own right, contains a much broader discussion topic about attitudes towards 'authentic' cultural heritage. If we consider Serra's rebuilt sculpture to be the 'authentic' one, how then should we approach buildings that were destroyed in wars and rebuilt thereafter? Entire cities were rebuilt after World War II, in places ranging from Warsaw to St. Malo, and tourists flock there every day with only a few aware that many or even most of the buildings they look at as 'authentic' are actually post-war reconstructions.

And if they knew, would it even matter? Almost every old building has been restored or renovated many times over the centuries. The Tallinn Town Hall (see picture) is hailed as the "only surviving gothic style Town Hall in Northern Europe", but over the 700 years of its existence, it has burnt down, been renovated, the spire of the Hall has been reconstructed twice (once after being struck by lightning, once after being struck by a Soviet bomb), the weather wane has been replace three times and the two dragon-head drains were added a good few hundred years after the original construction.

So if the Tallinn Town Hall is still 'authentic', the Changdeokung palace in Korea is still 'authentic' (though having been burnt to the ground more than once), why would the Richard Serra sculpture be anything other than authentic? Or the restored Bamiyan Buddhas (assuming they ever finish the reconstruction).

It seems to me that even in cases of tangible cultural artifacts, the intangible aspect associated with them is what gives the objects properties of cultural heritage. Benjamin calls it 'aura', Lowenthal explains it as the binding history and memory into a physical object. If that's how we evaluate cultural heritage, then the physical equivalence of an artifact to what it was at the time of its original construction is of negligible importance. In fact, part of what gives the artifact its value are the changes it contains and the history it reflects. If we could somehow teleport the original Bamiyan Buddhas from the time of their construction in the 6th century to present day, they would not be as 'authentic' as the (hopefully) restored versions, since they would not reflect the 15 centuries of human history in the way the restored versions would. For the same reason we can consider the Berlin Reichstage (see picture) as 'authentic' cultural heritage though it only bears a passing resemblance to the original.

It's the aura, not the atoms, stupid.