During the conclusion of the article “Should we Resurrect Dead Buildings,” Mr. Betsky starts thinking about authenticity in architecture. I would argue that this could be the same conclusion with anything, in any moment. His argument for not resurrecting designs of the past is that they aren’t authentic. They aren’t new. They don’t respond to current context, nor do they solve present problems. They are simply the paint-by-numbers representation of the original.
I think that’s true for this architectural argument. So, too, do I think this is applicable to relationships. We can never resurrect a lost love or a romantic moment because the context is always different. We could write a play and act out the moment, but while it’s representational of the original, and might even fill a romantic pang from our own experiences, and it might even share our remembrances with others, it will never be authentic because it exists out of time.
Authenticity, then, is a function of time. It occurs and exists only in the time it was meant to respond to and never occurs again. If we lives with RAM brains, we would never remember what has passed and everything would be authentic because we are living in the now.
It is what it is and can never be something it is not. Print that on a t-shirt!
Photo by CamiliaTWU, Creative Commons, no changes made