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
3 comments:
Congratulations on your first post here! You really had me going "Huhhhhh??!" for a bit.
It's interesting to me that while "Roundabout" presents itself as an "exchange on faith, culture, and technology" and the author's profile suggests "expertise" in media, religion and business, I find that the opening argument, the analogy of the violin's ontological &/or teleological evolution, and the closing statement, offer meagre meat upon the bone of "authenticity implies purity". Throw in dressing phrases like "syncretic process", "philosophical framework", and "musical heresy" and there is an incipient angst developing within me about the real purpose of the blog and specifically this post.
Fortunately, that is a transient affect as I ponder the meaning of it all... My mind wanders to Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" and to the words of a pre-classical "Preacher" who aptly stated "vanity of vanities!"
This is perhaps one of the more (if not the most) novel employments/treatments of "syncretic" and "authentic" I've witnessed in my brief history on the planet. Perhaps it's your proposition that it is time for society (Western or Hellenistic societies especially) to re-examine the etymology of authentic and syncretic...?
But more importantly, was that what you intended?
Also, if one were to examine your argument "nothing is truly authentic" from a logical or philosophical vantage it really would not pass muster. The argument is based on a fallacy that is impossible to support and the antithesis of which is just as indefensible. Perhaps you were seeking to create a sort of dialectical tension with your argument...
Anyway, it's all food for thought!
I wish you much success as you fine-tune your content and presentation. All the best!
Glad to see you've been exposed somewhere along the way to Hegel. However, your post implies a latent elitism: the violin isn't seen by most as an instrument appropriated by classical music, but one which properly belongs to the realm of folk music, particularly in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. The role of the violin has never been static: it originated and has featured in the peasant culture of Europe since the Early Mediaeval Period. What you've done is to take a chronological cultural snapshot and try to stretch its historiography to make it fit your point. C'mon Costin, you should know all this: it's in your cultural history!!
I remember El Fenix had really good authentic mexican food in Fort Worth. Or atlest I thought of it as authentic at the time. I really enjoyed it, especially the one on Camp Bowie. Sometimes I would go there alone I loved it so much and read a good book and enjoy thier enchiladas. I think the El Fenix on Camp Bowie burned down right before I left. Maybe that is why I left. Good blog Costin. You make some very valid points. You also got me to thinking about authentic Mexican food.
Post a Comment