Knaller has written about Esthetic Authenticity and distinguishes Subject Authenticity, Art Authenticity and Referential Authenticity, during which she has uncovered many paradoxes. (Knaller, 2007, p. 21-24) Lionel Trilling (1972) has described how the word authenticity got adopted for describing the nature of people: we are impelled to use some word which denotes the nature of this being and which accounts for the high value we put upon it. The word we employ for this purpose is 'authenticity'. It is a word of ominous import. As we use it in reference to human existence, its provenance is the museum, where persons expert in such matters test whether objects of art are what they appear to or are claimed to be, and therefore worth the price that is asked for them - or, if this has already been paid, worth the admiration they are being given. That the word has become part of the moral slang of our day points to the peculiar nature of our fallen condition, our anxiety over the credibility of existence and of individual existences. An eighteenth-century aesthetician states our concern succinctly - 'Born originals', Edward Young said, 'how comes it to pass that we die in copies?' "(p. 81). Authenticity is used by Luciano Floridi as a qualification of an identity of human beings in the infosphere. (Floridi, 2015). His use is rooted in western tradition of assessing authenticity in two ways: how can you trust that someone can be identified in a reliable way, and how can you trust someone acts like his "authentic self", like Trilling describes in the citation above? In Floridi's 4th Revolution, the word evidently does not lose its importance and continues to have meanings and functions that have been in use for a long time. Whenever the word authenticity is used as a signifier for the trustworthiness of an object, it is considered a fundamental value in our society. If the authenticity of a document or artefact cannot be proved, it is considered a fake. Lives have been saved by proving the authenticity of documents. Lies have been uncovered by proving that a work of art, or a medieval charter is a fake. History has been rewritten when sources turned out to be unreliable. To add some complexity: authenticity is a word that is rooted in western cultures. In a lot of non-western languages, the word authenticity did not even exist (Falser, 2012, p. 77). In post-colonial history the word authenticity is often perceived as colonialist and humiliating (Bhatti, 2012, p. 61). The tourist industry is an example to see what the sometimes disastrous implications of "searching for authenticity" may have for whole societies. Authenticity is a sticky, slippery and self-contradictory word. It is as empty and as meaningful as you want it to be. It is linked to evidence, trustworthiness, justice, esthetic sensation, moral judgements, propaganda, marketing, colonial oppression and to making lots of money. The purpose of this essay and definitions of key terms The question that this essay tries to answer is: can this confusing word "authenticity" be an applicable qualification for records in a digital environment? To answer this question, the following sub-questions will be raised: 1. How is the term authenticity used in respect to records? 2. Does the nature of records change in a digital environment? 3. Can authenticity still be used as a qualification even when the nature of records changes in a digital environment? 4. Can we speak of a paradigm shift regarding the term authenticity in a digital environment? To search for answers, I will introduce a framework for authentication and I will frequently use insights from disciplines like archival theory, art history, information philosophy and ecological philosophy. Since this essay is an attempt to explore new perspectives it inevitably contains elements of speculation. In this essay the terms authentic, authenticity, authentication, authenticator, authenticated and informed will be used as follows: 1. Authentic is defined in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as follows: "The term 'authentic' is used either in the strong sense of being "of undisputed origin or authorship", or in a weaker sense of being "faithful to an original" or a "reliable, accurate representation". To say that something is authentic is to say that it is what it professes to be, or what it is reputed to be, in origin or authorship." 2; 2. Authenticity is a qualification granted to an object, a person, a group, an event or another entity. The value may consist of being of "what it purports to be" (Park, 2001, p. 272), or of contributing to the experience of the authenticity of another object, person or a group. The former is the traditional definition as used in diplomatics. In this essay it will be called Strong Authenticity. The latter is the definition of what Susanne Knaller has called esthetic authenticity (Knaller, 2007, p. 21-24). It will be called Weak Authenticity; 3. Authentication is the process that results in the acceptance or rejection of a claim of authenticity; 4. The Authenticator is a person, group machine or other entity that asserts, confirms of rejects a claim of authenticity; 5. The Authenticated is a person, group, object, event or other entity for which a claim for authenticity is asserted, confirmed or rejected; 6. The Informed is a person, group, machine or other entity that receives the result of authentication. In the following paragraphs I will explore how the nature of records (the authenticated) changes in a digital environment and how the interaction between authenticator, authenticated and informed may function in this environment. Subsequently the possible interactions between these entities will be described. The essay concludes with an attempt to answer the questions and with observations on change and continuity. archives in liquid times 250 frans smit records, hyperobjects and authenticity 2 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/, accessed 29-09-2017 251

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2017 | | pagina 127