I just got finished reading a real eye-opening book on the search for authenticity. The Authenticity Hoax, by Andrew Potter explores the concept of society's modern search for a truly authentic way of living. It's conclusion: if something is marketed as authentic, or you have to say it...it isn't. Through delving into topics such as tourism, politics, consumerism and philosophy, Potter exposes the search for the authentic as nothing more than exclusionary status seeking. It really caused me to stop and reconsider exactly why I make some of the choices I do, and if it is for the right reasons or not.

Of particular interest is the chapter that explores authenticity in art. For example, if after visiting an art gallery with some famous works, you found out that one was a forgery, it would be natural to feel cheated. Despite the fact the forgery was indistinguishable to you from the real thing visually, a painting's perceived value is that it holds with it a certain spirit of the moment, that doesn't exist in the fake. The chapter goes into detail about how the best art authenticators in the world mostly really on an overall sense, or gut feeling from a painting, as opposed to signature or lab analysis tests.

Another interesting theoretical question is the status of a piece if it has been remade based on an original. In the 90's, British shock artist Damien Hirst sold a work featuring a giant tiger shark in a case, pickled in formaldehyde. The tank had not been properly sealed and a decade later when the owner resold the piece, Hirst offered to recreate it and properly seal it this time. So the question remains, especially if the original was not destroyed...which one one is the real "Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" and which one is the fake.