On Authenticity in Architecture and Space
Castillo de Matrera en Villamartín, Ignacio Palomo Duarte. CC-BY-SA-4.0
I n 2015, the ninth-century Castle of Matrera in Villamartín, Spain underwent a significant restoration. The walls of the impressive castle had all but collapsed and the firm Carquero Arquitectura was tasked with revitalizing and remaking the building. The project was a controversial combination of historical and Brutalist styles that resulted in both public outcry and international media attention and a prestigious Architizer A+Award in 2016.[1] In their design of the project, Carquero Arquitectura spoke directly of the politics of authenticity that were connected to the work: “The proposal aims to avoid the aesthetic mimicry that involves falsification or loss of value of authenticity and, in parallel with the practice in intervention of movable heritage, its historical value is enhanced.”[2] The project is a reminder of the curious and challenging politics of authenticity that pervade the worlds of architectural and spatial design.
The issue of authenticity has long bewildered philosophers, cultural critics, and laypersons alike.[3] The meaning of authenticity is tied to notions of that which is “authoritative, authorized, canonical, trustworthy, reliable, genuine, original, factual, and real.”[4] The concept has relevance in numerous academic fields and contexts of everyday life. Within antiquities, archaeology, art history, and museum studies, the concept suggests reflection on the veracity of an object, site, or material form such that its context, history, and story are clarified and expressed to the public. In philosophy, notably in the work of Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger, authenticity conveys the idea that an individual could achieve a state of being uncontaminated and generally unaffected by the influences, temptations, and misdirection offered by the world at large.[5]
A Neoclassical Ionic column capital, British Museum Rotunda. THE RIGHT ANGLE JOURNAL
Within architecture and spatial design, the idea of authenticity may relate to principles of process, time, detail, intent, and revision and may convey the notion that a building, space, or material form is presented to the public or client with interests greater than those of the architect, designer, or firm in mind, such that the product “speaks” to the public or client in ways that they understand.[6] On its surface, the determination of authentic architecture could be seen as challenging, as there is much debate as to what a particular form should look like and how it should function. The goal to create an appropriate site on the hallowed grounds of the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York City, for example, was challenging given the many competing political, economic, and social interests surrounding the reconstruction of the World Trade Center space.[7]
At more micro levels, architects deal with the challenges of authenticity in numerous aspects of their daily practice. The decision to offer siding that looks like wood or flooring that resembles stone may fool the observer of a space, were they to only look at the surfaces and not touch them. Architecture’s concern with bridging theory and practice, form and function, and other dichotomies could be best employed by challenging everyday perceptions about what is appropriate in a given space. One of the great possibilities of architectural authenticity may rest on the degree to which a given building, space, or material venue connects with the interests, lifestyles, and values of those who use, react to, and even transform the space. The palimpsest of space, as it is reworked by those who use it, suggests that authenticity may be established not in the final materialization of a space but in the more ephemeral ways that people reimagine it.
The Complexity of Authenticity
On the surface, the idea of authenticity appears to be caught up in that which is given, natural, real, simple. Architects and designers of space may appreciate the apparent simplicity of a form that they create, yet they understand that the reception, use, and transformation over time of that form is a complex, if not indeterminate, matter. One important reminder in the debate about authenticity is that a building, space, or material design that appears to be authentic in one cultural context may not be so in another cultural context. The debates about authenticity as a property in architecture and space emerge, in part, from the contexts of material and ideational culture in the field of heritage studies. Curiously enough, the goal of preserving “great” buildings, monuments, and archaeological sites from the ravages of time, war, and natural disasters is built upon a rigid definition of authenticity.[8]
Subsequent revisions of heritage guidelines, most notably, The Nara Document on Authenticity, have shifted understandings of authenticity from an “inherent, non-negotiable, and verifiable” property[9] to more fluid contexts. As the document states, “It is […] not possible to base judgements of values and authenticity within fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong.”[10] These progressive views of heritage began to express the great accomplishments of culture less as monolithic entities and more as processes, actions, even states of being.[11] A UNESCO World Heritage Site, such as the city of Verona, Italy, could begin to be seen as more than a collection of buildings and forms of material culture. The question of authenticity within architecture is informed by this shift in understandings of heritage. It may thus be of value to move beyond the idea that one could look at a building and make a judgment as to its authentic nature based on its materiality alone.
Genuine souvenir items for sale at the Trevi Fountain, Rome. THE RIGHT ANGLE JOURNAL
Recognition of this complexity might begin with an affirmation of the idea that authenticity is socially and culturally constructed. Some of the most significant sites of architecture are museums. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Louvre Museum, Tate Modern, British Museum, Centre Pompidou, State Hermitage Museum are some of the most architecturally rich spaces in the world, but what makes their presence of value to the debates about authenticity in architecture is the degree to which their holdings – their works of art, culture, folklore, and history – remind us of the variability and fluidity of humanity. The Museum of Jurassic Technology in Culver City, California, while not an architecturally stunning space, holds a key to deconstructing staid notions of authenticity. Walking into the museum, one immediately questions what she or he is witnessing. Certain displays and dioramas appear to be historical representations of actual events, yet others, including a reconstruction of a jungle bat teleporting through solid matter, immediately provoke a sense of bewilderment in the visitor[12] who may strain to understand if the apparition is real. This is the great value of this, and all, museums. Questions that we may have about the authenticity or realness of an object that we view on display remind us that the matter of authenticity is not a simple surface or material phenomenon.
Beyond the material confines of museums, the world of historical re-enactment, which uses the historical sites and events of the past as inspiration for contemporary reinterpretation, reminds us that authenticity is not an “either-or” phenomenon. As Gordon Jones has written in terms of Civil War re-enactment, the spaces of historical re-enactment “need only be ‘real’ in the eye of most beholders. As seen in re-enacting […] what is ‘real’ is always contested, since each of us imagines and approaches the past slightly differently.”[13] With such work in mind, we may imagine that authenticity may be viewed as a continuum ranging from the more authentic to the less authentic, such that we begin to appreciate the nuance that is present in architecture, space, and our myriad activities, contexts, and states of being within them.[14]
Principles for the Future of Authenticity
Principles for the Future of Authenticity Instead of viewing the question of authenticity and architecture as a contest to determine the value, originality, or genuine nature of a building, space, or material feature, we might use the question as an opportunity to promote more critical insights into the design, construction, and criticism of contemporary spaces. The following list of principles suggest a value in reframing authenticity as a pedagogical consideration.
Conversation
Architecture has long fashioned itself as a discipline that is polyvocal and referential. In a culture of remixing and remaking, popular architecture may prove that authenticity relates to the possibility of establishing dialogue in a contemporary world that is marked by social, cultural, ethnic, and political divisions. The vestiges of cultural heritage notions of authenticity – notably those that lead to tribalism, nationalism, even warfare – may be reworked architecturally and spatially such that they reflect a commitment to dialogue, conversation, and the possibilities of intercultural communication. The exteriors of historic buildings like the Tribune Tower in Chicago or the public areas of Superkilen in Copenhagen, Denmark illustrate the bold possibility of authentic architecture being an open, not closed, entity – a space of feedback, intermixing, and transformation.[15]
Creativity
Regardless of whether they accept postmodern ideas about authenticity, many architects and designers would argue that architecture must remain a theory and practice that promotes creativity, experimentation, and transformation. The debates about authenticity that we have considered in the realm of heritage suggest the possibility of reframing the understandings of authenticity while preserving the value of material and ideational culture that is rooted in traditional notions of “great” buildings, spaces, or works of art. One possibility for both retaining architecture’s commitments to creativity and forward-looking practice and shifting the conceptions of authenticity is found in the realm of space that promotes new forms of technological immersion and virtual and augmented reality. Many of the newest immersive spaces of the popular culture world, such as the innovative immersive experiences of the Void in the United States, suggest that the perceptive and sensory opportunities created by new forms of virtual and augmented reality may present the scholar of architecture with more fertile grounds for exploration.[16]
Consequence
A final context for architecture’s role in the changing worlds of authenticity is perhaps its most important.
World Expo 2015, like world expositions before it, offered a bold and perhaps impossible vision of a future marked by conservation, smart ecological choices, and more informed citizens and consumers. One of the most significant pavilions of the expo was that of Switzerland. The pavilion was constructed with four towers – each of which had a finite amount of four key food items (coffee, apple, water, salt), chosen for their relevance as Swiss foodway symbols, as well as their connection to key issues of global sustainability and scarcity.[17] Guests who visited the pavilion were challenged to think about conservation and their individual complicity in systems connected to climate change, despeciation, and other concerns.
The Swiss Pavilion at World Expo 2015 is a reminder of the possibility of using architecture as a means of envisioning authentic future spaces not as aesthetic vessels but as those that open up conversations about immanent issues like sustainability. Authenticity could thus be a result of the conversations and creative choices that lead to the new spaces and material designs like these that emphasize architecture’s connections to the world, its people, and the most serious concerns. In this sense, authenticity is given an opportunity to connect more deeply with the world around it.
Notes
For more on the controversies related to this project, see Scott A. Lukas, “Heritage as Remaking: Locating Heritage in the Contemporary World,” in Angela M. Labrador and Neil Asher Silberman, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Public Heritage Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, 2018, 154-167.
Dan Howarth, “Carquero Arquitectura Restores Ancient Matrera Castle with Contemporary Elements,” Dezeen, October 3, 2016.
For an overview of the concept of authenticity, see Somogy Varga, “Authenticity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/ and for an overview of authenticity and the material world, see Paul Graves-Brown, “Authenticity,” in Paul Graves-Brown and Rodney Harrison, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 219-231.
Online Etymology Dictionary, https://www.etymonline.com
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, New York: Harper and Row, 1927. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, New York: Washington Square Press, 1948.
Scott A. Lukas, “Keeping It Real (on Authenticity),” Attractions Management 1 (2017), 93, available at, https://www.academia.edu/31790198/Keeping_It_Real_on_Authenticity_
See the documentary 16 Acres, directed by Richard Hankin, 2012.
This rigid definition is established in the UNESCO Venice Charter of 1964. In particular, the charter viewed restoration and reconstruction as forbidden acts in the preservation of heritage.
Maria Francesca Piazzoni, “Authenticity Makes the City: How ‘the Authentic’ Affects the Production of Space,” in L. Tate and B. Shannon, Planning for Authenticities, New York: Routledge, 154-169.
The Nara Document on Authenticity, UNESCO, International Council of Monuments and Sites, 1994.
11. For more on these contexts of authenticity and arguments for a postmodern understanding of heritage, see, Scott A. Lukas, “Heritage as Remaking: Locating Heritage in the Contemporary World,” in Angela M. Labrador and Neil Asher Silberman, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Public Heritage Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, 2018, 154-167.
See, http://mjt.org
Gordon Jones, “Performing Authenticity,” in Scott A. Lukas, The Immersive Worlds Handbook: Designing Theme Parks and Consumer Spaces, Burlington, MA: Focal, 2013, 110.
Scott A. Lukas, The Immersive Worlds Handbook: Designing Theme Parks and Consumer Spaces, Burlington, MA: Focal, 2013, 111.
For more on this idea, see, Scott A. Lukas, “Between Simulation and Authenticity: The Question of Urban Remaking,” in Tridib Banerjee and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris eds. The New Companion to Urban Design, Oxon: Routledge, 2019, 333-334.
See https://www.thevoid.com
For more on these contexts of the Swiss Pavilion at World Expo 2015, see, Scott Lukas, “Dark Theming Reconsidered,” in Scott Lukas, ed. A Reader in Themed and Immersive Spaces, Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press, 2016, 232-234.