authenticity  

Heath
In the US, art schools vary widely in approach and quality. It is often true that the ones that are strongest on traditional techniques are also sadly out of touch with anything else.
In the public sector, I suppose the Universities are the most similar to how you have characterized your own experience. Stronger on ideas, and fairly weak on the basics. There does tend to be a sense that the ship has left the shore with regards to traditional drawing skills, and the study of the formal elements of picture-making is only one of many choices for today's artist.
The community college system (first two years of college for those on a budget) is more focused on traditional skills-based outcomes than progressive ideas. If basics are what you want, that is the place one is most likely to find them.
Private art schools and design schools are less easy to generalize about, as the quality and approach of each varies. There are some truly great private art schools and some that border on the criminal.
I have had a few students from Australia over the years, and it is my sense that Australia has a higher educational rigor and standards than that of most of the universities in America.
EDIT PS: In the end, my belief is that a solid grounding in visual skills is obviously important, but that there are various ways skills can be learned. I prefer not to separate skills-building from creative choices of content. One can learn the basics of how to draw or paint while being totally engaged on the idea level as well.
It is not a requirement that one turn off the faucet of ideas until the time arrives when they can make "perfect" or refined work. Learning academic skills does not have to be an idea-less endeavor.
Sometimes what happens is that the "vision" or the spirt needs to lead, and a student makes a horribly clunky and visually poor version of their idea, but then learns to state it more eloquently or powerfully later, happily developing the skills to do so, but only once there is a sense of purpose or a goal in sight.
Learning is a complicated thing. Everybody is different.
Public colleges and universities in America are getting like the worst banks. The three vice-presidents at my college got 30% raises while the teachers are offered a 1% raise.

As vague and skirtish as all ...
As vague and skirtish as all of our responses are . I think this forum hosts a great variety of perspective.
Keep the opinions flowing.
As far as art goes, I'm a sucker for Impressionism.
Maurice de vlamnick

.
hehe, thanks for the considered response, from what I read students are heavily saddled with debt now too, it must freak the parents more than ever. I've always loved Vonnegut for this 'If you want to really hurt you parents, and you don't have the nerve to be gay, the least you can do is go into the arts'
As outlandish as my early sketches were I still hang onto them in the hope that eventually I'll be able to break the laws of physics.

are you talking about
sketches for impossible furniture? Are they any less impossible if you just call them sketches for sculptures?
As Lucifersum mentioned earlier, INTENT is half the battle in authenticity. One way or the other, the sketches point somewhere. Perhaps with further refinements, the pieces will obey the laws of gravity while still retaining the spirit of the sketches? or maybe they don't need to at all.
Context is everything.
I love seeing crude early conception sketches of pieces that are later realized.
Usually, you can clearly see what excited the artist or architect or designer in the first place.
Tex Brufer: I ramble. Thanks for your patience! (You have a great name by the way) That painter you like is a good one, and I would call him an "expressionist" as much as an impressionist. Lots of overlaps when these labels get used, generally and specifically. He seems to take lots of liberties with reality though. I think of it like this:
Expressionist = translates seen world through emotion: color, distortion, etc.
Impressionist = translates seen world though interpretation of light, etc.
But it looks like he is both at different times. Van Gogh was both too I think.

cont.
In architecture is a classic that the masterpieces buildings are wonderful examples of design, and wonderful how the users couldn't live there more than a year.
The same happens with many design icons that are excellent to show the paradigm of the time, but not to use them. Strak first to come to mind.
With whom you are going to be authentic next time?

Moral duty with your soul, and the soul of people you serve.
Nice thread. So much said. Let,s see if it,s possible to add something.
I hope not to do this very long and run it off topic, so I,ll resume the first part in two ideas:
1) Moral duty with your soul.
2) Authenticity, but with whom.
1) Just listen to your soul.
I write this, to add it from the perspective from one possible designer/producer side (that,s mine):
The only way to be authentic, is to be authentic with your soul.
And I liked how, in one moment, you almost come to the idea of the Moral duty, to me works better, more clear, other could be more subtle in your mother tongue, but to me is more clear: Moral duty... Moral duty with your soul.
Just that.
I have some examples how this can help, but no need them now
I,ll reserve examples for the next time.
2) Authenticity, but with whom?
May I ask, Who is asking for authenticity?
I think that in the question is the answer, and first you have to respond to yourself.
The point, is that there must be more than one authenticity.
Here I think there is a difference with Art, Pure Art lets say, that doesn't need to give explanations to nobody except yourself (Thanks Patrick).
But in architecture you have to be authentic with the the site, with the functionality, with the technical construction, with the customer, with the builders, and then you have to be authentic with your soul.
In design you have to be authentic with the customer, with the producer/factory, with the technical and construction side, with contextual things, and then you have to be authentic with your soul.
In an ideal project one could be 100% authentic with everybody and everything. But that's an utopia, in real life need to negotiate with all the parts.
Heath, when you commented about the two most authentic people you know that both made completely unashamedly reproduction things: They are for sure authentic with everything and everybody, and specially with the technical side and the customer/owner, with everything except....the laurels and the fame.
Those are the people I admire most too. When I go somewhere, and I find such an authentic people, almost break my heart, work so well in an almost anonymity?.
I find them unexpectedly anywhere, in a corner in a factory, or perhaps a craftsman, they have an art to do things.
In the other extreme we could find that most product designs that enter and win competitions are honest with the design establishment, and the designer, but many of them, are not so authentic with the client/customer, because most of them usually don't work well, or so well as other products that doesn't win prizes. Provably work well to show ideas and paradigmas.
But the products that people buy more, because they need and work perfectly well, seems to be not so honest to the designer soul. Or the prestigious of the company.

3) and 4)
Heath, there are two points I find very interesting, but think I feel it different...
THREE::
Most inauthentic architecture
H-,,,,,This is the most inauthentic architecture I can think of, done from what I've read with a pretty clear intent,.....Michelangelos library vestibule.,,,,,
G- Why do you think is inauthentic?. Do you feel it,s great, but you think is inauthentic?
Wich is the most authentic architecture form the cinquecento?
Is the Tempietto di San Pietro in Montorio, (San Pietro in golden mountain-in english), by Bramante, would be the other extreme. Is the perfection. Is the Masterpiece. The Manifest of the renacimiento. The perfection. Perfection in proportions and pure lines, centrality. See picture below.
Aren't you confusing Purity with Authenticity?
FOUR:
H- How do you feel about those small galleries that mix fine and applied? I've always felt uneasy with the mix?
G- I don?t know exactly what you mean:.....You mean mix fine and applied? Mix fine art and applied art? Could you please give 1-2 examples?
G- I feel very, very well.
Aren't you confusing Purity with Authenticity?
What about Flexibility?..
It,s interesting to see how flexible artists and designers can be, and how flexible can be their disciplines.
Once a discipline or a designer/artist go to the limit, and say I came up to here, the world dosen't stop, and creates a new discipline and a new actor to go on.
Limits...Border lines....vs Center
Edited ps: I understand why you say you are not a purist. I draft a lot to show my point of view, but run off topic so easy... I can't control my soul, I will be fire....Please to gift me 1 or 2 examples of that impurity.

A knock-off will always be a...
A knock-off will always be a copy, no matter how close to
the original design. Authenticity is tricky as many
design objects have been restored and may be constructed
from mostly replacement parts.
A better made copy if an original design is
simply an "authentic copy" because quality
has little to do with authenticity. Many mid-century
designs were often poorly made but it is the
history and connection to the original designer/producer
that makes the piece an authentic original design.
A copy might look the same but it lacks the aura.
I guess it all depends on why you like vintage design.

gustavo...
Lovely post as always.
Apologies but I must delve into philosophy in response to one of your early points...
Some men's and some women's souls are jet black. Would you have them listen to their souls? I'm not so sure that peace with their souls equals peace with ours. In fact it may mean the very opposite for ours. Practically even...