The word “authentic” has always bugged me. Examples: authentic Mexican food, authentic history, the authentic use of an object. The reason for my angst is that, while the word can be defined in various ways. authenticity implies purity: purity of origin, purity of identity, purity of purpose. However, my argument is that nothing is truly authentic; nothing is pure. Rather, everything we observe and understand, from a philosophical framework to Mexican food is the result of a syncretic process. In other words, what we know today is a result of two or more elements coming together to form a third, which eventually combines with a fourth to create a fifth, and so on. Take, for example, the violin—an instrument associated with the classical music genre. No orchestra is complete without it. Arguably (for most), the violin’s purity of purpose lies within the classical environment. But we are beginning to see a very different use for this instrument. Consider Jonathan Chu, classically trained violinist. On a given weekend, however, Chu cannot be found performing with the local philharmonic but rather on stage with rock-based bands such as Skillet and Big Daddy Weave. Musical heresy for most purists. In fact Chu’s MySpace page indicates that among his influences are Itzhak Perlman and Stevie Ray Vaughn. So the use of the violin has evolved. The concept is less profound than it is practical, reminding me to stay open to possibilities: possibilities of origin, possibilities of identity, possibilities of purpose. Piercing the veil of authenticity also encourages me to embrace change, a reality which is not only inevitable, but necessary as society seeks to create deeper meaning and a greater understanding of its elements.
Posts
