Last autumn, I suggested this topic for the January 2026 TCC Art Salon. I didn’t give any further explication at the time, though what I meant was “What does it mean for a work of art – in any discipline – to be authentic?”
One colleague, who is very concerned about art produced from prompts to AI (artificial intelligence) agents, focused on whether the artist produced the work themselves, versus having asked an AI agent to produce the work from specified parameters.
Another colleague, a photographer, opined that a photograph’s authenticity hinges on its presentation of what the artist saw, with limited post-shoot modification.
I provided a bit more context: I often read that really good art is grounded in the creator’s experiences and psyche, and requires the artist to be open to remembering, feeling, and expressing those experiences and psyche. Is that true, and if so, what does that mean in an artistic process?
A third colleague interpreted this using the phrase “authentic voice.” He and others went on to elaborate the factors that get in the way of an artist using their authentic voice in their work:
· thinking about the audience for the work;[1]
· working on commission for a specific patron;
· holding back aspects of the self that may be too strong or objectionable to some audiences;
· repeating a process or theme that you’ve used several times before;
· knowing exactly what outcome you want.
There’s another part of the claim boldfaced above: that there is objectively “really good art,” and art that fails to meet that bar. One artist asked “Who defines ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – shouldn’t it be the viewer?” She went further – shouldn’t the viewer determine whether the work feels authentic to them?
In a subsequent conversation, a poet friend argued strongly that “good” denotes quality of technique and production, and command of key antecedents of the artist’s work – these are qualities of art that will influence others and stand the test of time. However, art that isn’t “good” by these standards can still bring joy to the reader or viewer. Art is indeed a conversation between artist and viewer/listener, and the meaning/import of the conversation depend on both.
If an artist is working quite strictly according to an existing popular (or historic) style, can the work be authentic? No firm answers to this. However, participants seemed to agree that when an artist develops their own “style,” they can retain authenticity even when staying within the parameters of that style.
I concluded for myself that authenticity means reflecting the sum total of the artist’s experiences, observations, and emotions – including those that differ from what others might expect from that particular artist. This yields a certain amount of vulnerability, and a certain amount of originality.
[1] He went further, suggesting that when you’re contemplating or working on a piece of visual art, the moment you realize that someone else is going to look at it, your process loses some authenticity. If true, the only way to avoid this is to produce (some) works that you will not let anyone see.