When it comes to aging houses, it can be difficult or even impossible to preserve everything. Even, well cared for, wood floors only last so long before they need to be replaced. However, if one chooses to use the same type of wood, in the exact same dimensions, and lays it in the same direction, can one still think of it as authentic?
What is the difference between “authentic” and ”original”? Webster Dictionary defines Original as “pertaining to the origin or beginning; the first”, whereas Authentic is defined as “Having a genuine original or authority, in opposition to that which is false, fictitious, counterfeit, or apocryphal; being what it purports to be; genuine; not of doubtful origin; real; as, an authentic paper or register.” In many ways the two words appear to have the same meaning, with the one difference that authentic, which is synonymous with reliable, bona fide and unquestionable, does not have to be the first.
Would it be possible to think of preservation as authentic? When it comes to books, there is the first edition, then the second, and so on. The reprint usually contains the same content as the first edition, although there may be editing involved. It is the author’s work, but the reprint is a reprint and with time some of it may need clarification even reinterpretation to suit a changing language. If only the edition and text initially provided by the author, is thought of as original, would the reprints be viewed as authentic? Does the author’s hand have to perform the editing for the work to keep its authenticity? In restoration, the original architect may not be available to perform the preservation, which prompts me to ask, is it the author or the content that defines authenticity?
No comments:
Post a Comment