From the Vault: Authenticity, Part 2
01:08:39 Share

♪♪♪

Experience cloud-like comfort with high-resilience foam that's hypoallergenic and never needs fluffing. The sturdy steel frame ensures longevity, and the modular pieces can be rearranged anytime. Shop washablesofas.com for up to 60% off site-wide, backed by a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. If you're not absolutely in love, send it back for a full refund. No return shipping or restocking fees. Every penny back.

Upgrade now at washablesofas.com. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply. Today's episode is brought to you by USPS. I know, I know you've got your shipping game on lock, but did you know with USPS Ground Advantage service, it's like your shipment has a direct line to you.

You're in the loop the whole time. It leaves the dock. You know about it. It's on the road. Boom. You know. And when it reaches your customer, you guessed it. You're in the know again. Here's the real game changer. It's one journey, one partner, total peace of mind.

Check out USPS Ground Advantage service at USPS.com slash in the know. Because if you know, you know. Hey, everybody, it's your favorite plate cousin, Junior, from the Steve Harvey Morning Show. You know, the Toyota Tundra and Tacoma are designed to outlast and outlive. Backed by Toyota's legendary reputation for reliability. So get in a Tundra with available I-Force Max Hybrid engine, delivering exceptional torque and towing capacity. Or check out a Tacoma.

with available off-road features like crawl control. It can take you beyond the trails. Toyota trucks are built to last year after year, mile after mile. So don't wait. Get yours today. Visit buyatoyota.com. For deals and more, Toyota. Let's go places.

Here's to those who have been touched by metastatic breast cancer or MBC, which is breast cancer that is spread to other parts of the body. Celebrating the patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, and others who have been part of the HR positive HER2 negative MBC community with Ibrance, Palpacyclib, a Pfizer product.

Prescription Ibrants, 125 milligram tablets with an aromatase inhibitor is for adults with HR positive HER2 negative MBC as the first hormonal based therapy. Ibrants may cause low white blood cell counts that may lead to serious infections. Ibrants may cause severe inflammation of the lungs. Both of these can lead to death. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening chest pain, cough, or trouble breathing. Before taking Ibrants, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver, or kidney problems. Are nursing, pregnant, or planned to be?

For more information about side effects, talk to your doctor. Talk to your healthcare team about Eyebrance. Visit Eyebrance.com or call 1-844-9-EYEBRANCE for more information.

Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.

Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name is Robert Land. And I am Joe McCormick. And we're back with part two in our series on the concept of authenticity. If you haven't heard part one yet, you probably want to go back and check that one out first. But in brief, last time we explored a lot of the different overlapping cultural understandings of authenticity.

And we also looked at a psychology paper that tested how well people were able to assess authenticity in others. And the conclusion was that at least within the scenario tested, which was classroom interactions, we are not nearly as good as we think we are at judging whether other people are really being themselves or whether they are really being authentic.

Now, maybe that finding wouldn't be reproduced in other scenarios or using other measures of authenticity, because if you recall from last time, the measure in that study was comparing other evaluations of authenticity with self-evaluation. So you have people say themselves, like, do you feel like you can be yourself around people? Do your actions reflect your inner thoughts and feelings, things like that? And then have other people judge that same person. You know, how authentic do you think they're being? Yeah.

But if it's generally true that we're worse at detecting authenticity than we think we are, that has profound implications on everyday life because we make implicit and explicit judgments about authenticity all the time. And we use these judgments to manage our relationships, to decide who we like and who we trust. Right.

But also those judgments are they're sort of conceptually contagious throughout the mind. And we end up using assessments of authenticity, not just for people, but to determine our feelings about inanimate objects and our feelings in domains outside of personal relationships. And one of the big examples that comes to mind for me is the domain of art and aesthetics. We promised last time we'd be getting artsy fartsy today. So so here we are.

And, you know, we might throw in a few references to less artsy creations, some of the things we've talked about on Weird House Cinema before, for example. But yeah, we're going to be talking about authenticity in the arts. I guess some of this will come down to where you draw the line between art and entertainment or if you draw a line at all. But yeah.

One area in which I think people often seem especially concerned with authenticity in artistic expression is music. There's actually a book chapter about psychological studies of authenticity from 2006 that I've been reading through. This was a chapter by professors Michael H. Kurnis and Brian M. Goldman.

And I actually am only mentioning it because it uses an epigraph that really struck me. It's a quote from the singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen. And the lyric goes, If by chance I wake at night and I ask you who I am, oh, take me to the slaughterhouse and I will wait there with the lamb. So this is a lyric from the Leonard Cohen song Stories of the Street, which is a track on his 1967 album Songs of Leonard Cohen.

Now, I think the authors selected it as an epigraph for this chapter because it invokes the idea of personal authenticity. There's that line, if by chance I wake at night and I ask you who I am, it implies a crisis of authenticity, wondering who am I, who is the real me? And the second half is the resolution of that conditional if. Take me to the slaughterhouse and I will wait there with the lamb.

I don't know exactly what that means, and I would resist saying that it decodes to a sentiment that can be plainly expressed because like a lot of good poetry, it sort of seems to express an idea or a feeling that is real but is difficult to say directly. Whatever it means, it maybe suggests something about vulnerability, maybe something about the desire to protect or to be protected.

And whatever it means, I found it really striking. So I was interested in this quote because it's a song lyric that not only concerns authenticity with the line about, I ask you who I am, but in my personal opinion, it illustrates the quality of authenticity in music. And Rob, you might feel differently. You, the listener, might feel differently. If so, that's fine. We all have our unique responses to art. But

Whatever authenticity means in lyrics and musical performance, it feels present to me here. And I think...

Yeah, and...

am and lamb rhyme with each other. And that's, that's undeniable.

master at work here. I mean, actually, I think there's a lot of interesting stuff one could get into about how structural constraints like meter and rhyme interact with the expression of ideas. Like if they sort of like force you to choose different words than you might otherwise. And yet those words must, in order for the poem or the song to be good, still be true. What does that do to the way your mind works? Yeah, yeah. Like it works better that we're using the lamb instead of some other word

animal that you might take to a slaughterhouse because the lamb also brings in its own symbolism and its own language. So, yeah, I like it. I like the line. I'm not familiar with the song all that much, but I like the lyric. I think I've read that it was Cohen talking about an experience where he went by himself to Cuba and

And at some point, I think he says that he was like at the embassy and they send somebody to talk to him and they say that his mother is worried about him or something. Anyway, so I mentioned that because to me, this does illustrate that quality of authenticity in music. And by contrast, I don't want to single out any particular song or artist to like hate on as the encyclopedia entry for fake music.

But I think we can all probably think of a piece of music we've heard and found to have a quality of apparent insincerity, which makes the work unpleasant and uninteresting to us. Fill in with your own examples. Yeah, I'll get into some examples, not of like outright like...

fakery or anything here in a bit. But I think that some of the most interesting examples are examples that are kind of in that middle ground where either it is divided people about the artist's

potential sincerity and authenticity, or it has been something that, you know, that one individually and subjectively wrestles with. Like, do I like this? Do I believe this artist? Other people seem to believe them, but I'm not sure I do, and so forth. Yeah, yeah. Well, that's interesting that, you know, audiences can be divided in that way because, I mean, it's a truism that everybody has their own subjective views

reaction to art but i think you can also see some very stark trends in the way people relate especially to authenticity in music because i would say for some of us the relationship between musical expression and authenticity maybe only enters the mind every now and then maybe when we hear something we find especially moving and and sincere seeming or especially false and

But for other people, it's like a clear, ever-present, front-of-mind element of our taste in music, maybe even the single most important factor. And I'm curious, like, what makes that difference? And in the people for whom it is front-of-mind in their aesthetics, why? Yeah.

Speaking of Leonard Cohen, your inclusion of this quote kind of sent me down a rabbit hole of reading some other tidbits from interviews with Leonard Cohen and sort of refreshing myself about his career. But I ran across this one quote from an Alan Twigg interview with Cohen, and I want to read it here. Cohen says, quote, The question is, who am I?

So we invent a self, a personality. We sustain it. We create rules for it. When you stop asking those questions in those moments of grace, as soon as the question is not asked and the dilemma is dissolved or abandoned, then the true self or absolute self rushes in. That's our real nourishment. That's interesting in that it

it connects to what you were saying in the last episode about the more you sort of examine your own authenticity, the harder it can be to let it flow. Yeah, yeah. And I don't know. I feel like if I'm questioning the authenticity of a work of music or

a film or whatever kind of art I'm engaging with, like I'm probably not that engaged with the art, you know? I'm caught up in a bunch of other nonsense about the art. And I'm certainly not experiencing it in the way that the artist probably intended me to do, unless, of course, that is the artist's intent that they are challenging authenticity or something to that effect. That's a really good point. It

It's like when we do really get into evaluating whether something is authentic or not, it does make you have to like step back from the experience of it.

I assume a desire for perceived authenticity in the expression of musical artists is to some degree always present. But I was thinking about how it seemed especially important to me when I was a teenager. Like when I was a teenager, the worst thing a musical artist could be was fake, contrived, pandering, insensitive.

What did this mean to me? I don't know exactly. I mean, I could think of specific artists like very, I don't know, like very commercial rock bands or something that I would think of as very fake and seemingly insincere. You know, I don't know on what basis I was deciding that, but I don't feel the same urge to like seek raw authenticity and root out fakeness in music that I once did, though obviously I still don't like feeling like an artist is treating me with contempt.

But like, why is it that as I think maybe I'm not alone in this, like, why is it that as a teenager, you're especially tuned into this meta media quality of authenticity as opposed to more just sort of like in the work or in the song qualities of a piece of art?

That's interesting. And I think we might get into some of that in a bit because it makes me think of like the hyper social aspects of the teenager brain, you know, that we've touched on before on the show. But yeah, I suppose it's kind of a weird area to get into because, you know, thinking again about artists at particular times in their careers where they seem to divide their audience, right?

So it's interesting how two different musical artists can take on a persona to be received in wildly and it can be received in wildly different ways. And the way they're received for these personas or changes in their style may also differ over time. So I think one of the main examples that comes to mind is the whole...

And this is not something certainly I was not around to experience this in real time, but you read about it and hear about it in retrospectives. But Bob Dylan going electric in 1965, people allegedly shouting Judas at him. I don't know if that really happened, but that's what I recall reading about it. So, yeah, he had recorded like acoustic folk albums and then it suddenly was playing with an electric guitar and a full band.

And some people didn't like they saw that not just as a change in style that well yeah I mean you know artists go through different kind of periods it was like that was a betrayal he was no longer what I signed up for.

Yeah, and it can feel kind of silly looking back on it, because from our point of view, we know everything that came after that shift. He put out a lot of great material, great albums, and other changes in style and explorations of different styles and ideas. But he remained Bob Dylan through all of it. And some of it is maybe not everybody's favorite, but some of it's pretty great. I certainly think so.

Now, of course, in that example, you have like a shift in sound that I think would largely be reflected. You know, it's not like he would he would OK, he would say, all right, after one album, I'm going to put the guitar away.

But you do have other artists who have kind of like a single album that seems to be an outlier. It seems to be like an exploration of something different that is maybe not well received by fans. And I think one example that came to mind on this front is Neil Young's 1983 album, Trance. This was actually within a stretch of Neil Young albums where he was like changing genre every album. So during this period, you know, Neil Young.

He had sort of he had worked in folk. He had worked also in heavy electric rock. He'd done both. But he in the 80s, he released a country album, a blues album with like horns, a rockabilly album called Everybody's Rockin'. And then this not I'm not necessarily saying saying them in the correct order, but then also this electronic album, which is probably the weirdest of all of them.

Yeah, he uses a robotic voice on some of these tracks. And I've read that this was not well received at the time by some fans. But I don't know. I like some of the robotic songs on this particular album. Yeah.

You have to be in the right mindset to receive it, especially with songs like Computer Cowboy. But yeah, I think there's stuff to appreciate there. Now, a couple of examples that I want to bring up. These are ones that definitely occurred during my teenage years. So, you know, getting into that idea of being like hypersensitive to perceived inauthenticity.

So one that comes to mind is David Bowie exploring a more experimental industrial sound on his album Outside in 1995. So were there people who were like, there is a real David Bowie and this is not it? It is my understanding that at the time, some of the older David Bowie fans were not crazy about it. And their line of thought was like, I don't want to go see him in a concert if he's going to be doing this.

uh, MTV material, you know, it's like, I want to hear the, the hits, you know, which I guess is always the case with artists putting out new material and trying new things. But yeah, this was more of a, an industrial sound. It was like, I think right after this album, he ends up touring with nine inch nails. So at the time, uh,

I bought the album, like I did as the television commanded me. And I liked, and I guess I still, I don't really listen to this album anymore, but I remember it having some tracks that I dug. But at the same time, like some of that dialogue was in my head about music.

I wasn't thinking of it in terms of authenticity and inauthenticity or fakery even, or even really getting deep into like David Bowie's personas. But it was, but on some level I was wondering like, is this, is this something he's doing just to,

remain popular or is this his heart you know is his is he legitimately exploring new sounds and trying new things and i think it's it's my understanding now it is the latter like he he is an artist that was continually reinventing himself and trying new things and this was just a phase of that and you know he stuck with this sound for i think another album and then he tried other things

That is interesting. So I have no real familiarity with Bowie's nineties output. So I don't really know anything about this, but, uh,

Yeah.

And that would have to suggest something about like the broader, the way that that genre or what he's doing in it is received in the broader marketplace, like what the marketplace thought about industrial music or something. Yeah, yeah. Because another example that comes to mind, and this is not a major moment in music history or anything, but it's one that stood out to me because, again, I was a teenager at the time. And that was that the band Danzig suddenly went industrial in 1996. Yeah.

as well. So that's what a year after Outside. And that one I remember as being a lot more jarring. I'm certainly looking back on it like it is a rather starch departure from the previous material and seems like maybe it's a little less authentic. I don't know. I'm sure Danzig fans will disagree or agree on this. I have no point of reference here.

But, you know, this kind of thing keeps happening, like the most recent one. And I am not super well informed on all the ins and outs of this story. But, you know, it made huge headlines that Beyonce was going to put out a country album. And it seems like that probably stirred up some of the same discussions like like Beyonce do a country album. Can someone who has not done country music albums before do a country album? Of course they can. We just ran across some other examples of people doing the same thing. Yeah.

But, yeah, anytime an artist shifts and tries something new, takes on a new persona, et cetera, it raises these questions. I don't really know anything about this example either, except I saw some kind of headline about her maybe claiming that it was not actually a country album. I don't know. Yeah. But, you know, artists engage in this sort of shift all the time. And it also it reminds me a bit of our discussion about recipes in the past. You know, whatever we now think of as the standard recipe was at some point a shift.

And likewise, I mean, speaking of industrial music, one of the big industrial mainstays out there has always been Ministry. Ministry started out as a synth pop group. If you go back to their first album, it is, it's very, I mean, you know, you can still, you can still feel the Ministry in the album, but it's a different sound entirely. And that was just,

you know, part of this particular group's evolution. And, you know, it doesn't mean it's inauthentic. It's just where they were at that point in time. But I guess in general, I'm willing to give most artists the benefit of the doubt on these shifts and changes, though I'm sure there are some examples that are maybe a little more heavily slanted in the direction of inauthenticity. But, you know, it's not as fun to discuss those. And

and throw a lot of criticism at bands and performers for trying new things. However, there was that one Garth Brooks album, as I remember, where he took on a different persona and did non-country music. Chris Gaines. Chris Gaines, yeah. This was not well received, as I recall. Was it not? I don't think it was. I don't think he came back to the persona either. But again, this is an area that I know even less about. So Garth Brooks fans, write in, I guess, and we can hash this out.

How surprised are people going to be when they find out that Garth Brooks is actually also one of the guys in Slipknot? That's right. They have masks on. You never know. ♪

Let's be real. Life happens. Kids spill. Pets shed. And accidents are inevitable. That's why you need a washable sofa that can keep up. Our sofas are fully machine washable, inside and out, so you can say goodbye to stains and hello to worry-free living. Made with liquid and stain-resistant fabrics, they're kid-proof.

pet friendly and built for everyday life. Plus changeable fabric covers let you refresh your sofa whenever you want. Need flexibility? Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa anytime to fit your space, whether it's a growing family room or a cozy apartment. Plus they're earth friendly and trusted by over 200,000 happy customers. Starting at just $699, it's time to upgrade to a stress-free mess-proof sofa.

Visit WashableSofas.com today and save. That's WashableSofas.com. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply. It's tax season, and by now, I know we're all a bit tired of numbers. But here's an important one you need to hear. $16.5 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud last year.

Here's another: 20%. That's the overall increase in identity theft related to tax fraud in 2024 alone. But it's not all grim news. Here's a good number: 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US-based restoration specialists will fix it, backed by another good number: the Million Dollar Protection Plan. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back.

Getting diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, or MBC, which is breast cancer that is spread to other parts of the body, can feel scary. But

But you're not alone. Real women across the country with HR positive HER2 negative MBC are taking Ibran's PalboCyclib, a Pfizer product. Prescription Ibran's 125 milligram tablets with an aromatase inhibitor is for adults with HR positive HER2 negative MBC as the first hormonal-based therapy.

Eye brands may cause low white blood cell counts that may lead to serious infections. Eye brands may cause severe inflammation of the lungs. Both of these can lead to death. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening chest pain, cough, or trouble breathing. Before taking eye brands, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be, all medical conditions you have, and about all the medicines you take. For more information about side effects, talk to your doctor.

Talk to your doctor about Ibrance, the number one prescribed FDA-approved oral combination treatment for HR-positive HER2-negative MBC. Visit Ibrance.com or call 1-844-9-IBRANCE.

Here everybody, it's your favorite play cousin Junior from the Steel Ray Morning Show. The Toyota Tundra and Tacoma are designed to outlast and outlive, combining raw power with precision engineering. All backed by Toyota's legendary reputation for reliability. Climb inside a Tundra and experience the uncompromising strength with its available i-Force Max engine. The Tundra delivers exceptional power, torque, and towing capacity.

the spacious and high-tech cabin keeps you connected on the run. Or check out a Tacoma, agile, dependable, and unstoppable. The Tacoma is designed for those who go beyond the trail. Stay ahead of the pack with available off-road features like crawl control. Or break out your tunes with the available portable JBL speaker. Toyota trucks are built to last. Year after year, mile

after mile so outlast every adventure and outlive the moment buy a tundra or tacoma today visit buy toyota.com toyota's official website for deals or stop by your local toyota dealer to find out more toyota let's go places

But I wanted to briefly come back to the question of why it is that music might feel like of all the genres of art out there, why music would be especially subject to authenticity concerns, like why, you know, teenagers are really concerned about whether this singer singer songwriter is authentic as opposed to, I don't know, you know, like painters or something. And I,

obviously there could be a lot of explanations here, but I kind of wonder if

If it has to do with the fact that music is, is the art form most likely to be experienced in an involuntary way. So for example, you will rarely, if ever be forced to look at a painting or watch a film there, you know, there might be social pressure to go see a movie with your friends that you're not really interested in or something like that. It was some weird circumstance, but generally you can look at what you want. And if you don't like what you're looking at, you can like, you know, direct your attention elsewhere or even shut your eyes.

Unless you have the aid of some kind of technology like, you know, headphones or something, which are not appropriate to use in many, say, social or work scenarios, you cannot practically shut your ears off to music the way that you can shut your eyes or avert your eyes from a painting. And if music is audible in the place where you are, you're going to hear it.

I guess this would be true of any sound based art form because of the nature of our bodies. But generally that's going to mean music.

Um, so music is like, especially difficult to tune out if we don't like it. And I wonder if that makes us especially sensitive to what we would think of as artistic deficiencies in it. And then on top of that, a lot of music has a, has a linguistic element, unlike a lot of other art forms.

Because there are words in most popular music, there is increased opportunity to scrutinize what a song is saying and evaluate it for sincerity or truth.

Yeah, yeah. Though, again, just because the song is annoying doesn't mean it's not authentic. Right. Like, I am not a huge, you know, no judgment if you're a fan of this song, but, you know, the Smash Mouth song. What is the Smash Mouth song? All Star? Yeah, the All Star. Okay. That song, I'm not a fan, but I do get it earwormed in my head every now and then, and it's annoying, but I don't think I would argue that

that band was being inauthentic in crafting and performing this track. But it was certainly not my thing.

I think another thing to keep in mind about all this, too, is we have to bear in mind media consumption. So when I think back on the music that I was exposed to in high school, most of it was MTV-related content because the TV was always on. And MTV was one of the channels that you could...

you would frequently go to and like not watching the TV just did not feel like an option. It was just, you know, it was like the weather. It was like the ocean.

You just you engaged with it. It was just part of your environment. And I think it is like that to varying degrees for a lot of folks today. I mean, there are people who still consume television like that. Or even if you're not watching television, perhaps you're consuming various advertisements in the same way. So some of these songs or elements, certainly there have been more than a few commercials that have the air of inauthenticity about them. And you may be exposed to those over and over again.

Okay, Rob, I think it is time we must bring Orson Welles into the picture. That's right. Yeah, getting even more into this idea of fakeness, of inauthenticity to the point where it is an outright fake, which is not something we've really been leveling at any of these artists we've discussed here. Because, you know, this is more of a, you could, if you were feeling particularly harsh, you might say, oh, well, this change, this was fake. This album was fake. But it wasn't really fake. It was an actual fraud.

But yeah, what we're going to talk about next does get into that territory. So knowing that we're going to be talking about authenticity in preparation for these episodes, I decided to finally check out Orson Welles 1973 film F for Fake.

A film that is sometimes described as a docudrama, other times a film essay. And I guess I feel like maybe film essay is a little more appropriate. It is because it's not just like a straight up documentary. No, I would say film essay is perfect because it is a combination performance and a meditation on themes with the aid of visuals and sound and also a documenting of certain real life characters and events.

Yeah. And it's also kind of like being cornered by Orson Welles, probably like in a bar or a restaurant. And he's just talking at you for a long time. And it's remarkable. And he's very charismatic. And you are glad that you have been cornered by such an interesting man. Yeah. The French are known to do magic tricks. And he shows you some. Yeah.

I was looking up a little bit about how this film was received and Robert Roger Ebert in his review described it as a film spun out of next to nothing. And he included this quote, Orson Welles can make better movies than most directors with one hand tied behind his back. His problem, of course, is that for 35 years, the hand has remained tied. That's good.

I don't know if I I'm not as enough of an expert on Wells's films of his filmography to really comment on that. But esteem for this particular film has grown quite a bit since its initial release, where I think it was kind of polarizing. Some people thought it was brilliant. Others thought it was incomprehensible. Ebert gave it three stars in 77.

it's been a long time since I've seen it, but I remember quite liking it. My friend Ben showed it to me, uh, years and years ago. Uh, and, uh, yeah, I was, uh, I was, my attention was wrapped.

Yeah. So in short, it's a Wells-hosted, essentially, we'll say documentary just for ease of conversation here, about famed painter and art forger Elmer de Horry, which cites and features interviews with a man who wrote a book about Elmer, Clifford Irving.

A man who, in turn, after his interview segments were shot for this documentary, but prior to the completion of the film, turned out to have allegedly written a hoax biography of Howard Hughes. This was a hoax autobiography, right? Yes, it was an autobiography, yes. Claiming to be by Howard Hughes. Yeah, based on his handwriting and so forth. Huge, huge scandal. So,

These are the initial two fingers of the cat's cradle that Wells constructs from here on out in this film, on fakery, on authenticity. And he also freely injects his own story into all of this, citing early exaggerations of his own credentials that allowed him to rise to the top in show business. I think he adds, I've been plummeting ever since.

He he also brings up the 1938 War of the Worlds radio fiasco, which, of course, you know, apparently convinced a fair number of number of people that it was actually happening. And he goes on to indulge in some overt forgery in at least the last portion of the film and then points out the forgery and invites us all to think about it.

So sort of like we've been doing in this series, he invites you to think about what is authenticity. We use this concept, but do we understand what it means? What is real and what is fake and why do we care? Yeah. Like what's the difference between a masterpiece and a masterful fake?

Is almost any story indeed some kind of a lie? A lie, in Picasso's words, as cited by Wells here, is something that makes us realize the truth. Is that true? Is that a dependable statement? Can an authentic artist create a fake? Can a hoaxer create or, I suppose, recreate a masterpiece? You know, there are a lot of ins and outs to this when you start swirling it around in your Negroni.

That was his favorite drink, by the way. Oh, yeah. So these are not really questions meant to be conclusively answered. And indeed, I think we'll find that it all depends very largely on the context of an individual example. So, for instance, what sort of lie is

is a given story based upon? Is it based on a malicious lie, a hateful lie, a well-meaning lie, a mere exaggeration or dramatization? There's so much room for variation here. And you still encounter various examples in just sort of like popular discourse about individuals, about performances, about performance works where someone will say, well, is this authentic? Was part of this made up? And so forth.

I think the difference between fiction and a lie is the knowing consent of the audience in advance.

And in most cases, it's interesting that this is established through entirely metatextual means. Like you can have a printed novel in which no part of the text makes clear that the events described did not actually happen. And yet somehow we all still know it's like from, you know, surrounding clues in the culture, like what section of the bookstore or library you'd find the book in, how other people talk about the book, how it's advertised and so forth.

Meanwhile, if you read something that you understand to be a true account of events that happened in reality, say an autobiography of Howard Hughes or something, and then you discover that the events described are fictional or that the author is not who they claim to be, I think most of us would feel very frustrated and betrayed by this.

unless that is we know in advance that we're going to be told lies. And here I think back to an example that's come up on the podcast a number of times in the past year or so. I'm very interested in the autobiography of the 16th century Italian sculptor Benvenuto Cellini. We've told a number of stories about him. We talked about him

in the episode about diamonds, where we were talking about his claims that someone tried to poison him with a diamond in his food. And so, you know, Cellini, like he writes this autobiography, which purports to be the true story of his life. And yet I am certain that it contains lots of exaggerations and even outright lies. And yet I'm still interested in reading it. And I think it's that

I think it's that I'm okay with that because I already know that we don't want to find out after reading something that what we read isn't true. We'd like to know beforehand, like going into a lie, knowing in advance feels like a whimsical adventure, but finding out you've been told a lie after you believed it makes you feel like a fool. Yeah, absolutely. And of course, over the course of time, um,

Something that is a fraud that that is fooling people, it can eventually find new life after the fact where someone's like, we know this is not a fraud now. And now perhaps we can appreciate it as a work of fiction. But that transition is not guaranteed and certainly doesn't occur every time.

But in this discussion of the difference between fiction and lies, between fantasy and lies, reminds me of our discussions in the Weird House episode on the movie The NeverEnding Story based on Michael Inda's novel,

And in the novel, especially, Inda gets into the idea of the denizens of Fantasia or Fantastica being, you know, creatures of pure fantasy and that have been dreamed into existence by humans. But if they travel through the nothing, they're not destroyed. They're reborn in our world, but they are reborn as lies. So that is the way he sort of explains.

imagine the relationship between lies and fantasy, between lies and fiction, is that the lie is kind of the same energy, but it is twisted into this form that does not...

give us hope, does not give us escape. It takes this cruel form that is a part of the overtly unimaginative and cruel mundane world. In citing a book like The NeverEnding Story, of course, we're also admitting that, yeah, we're dealing with highly subjective territory here.

Now, one point that is hit upon in F for Fake is that between the masterful fraud and the masterpiece, it's belief in authenticity that makes all the difference. Monetarily, certainly, and Wells dwells on this somewhat, but also in terms of the esteem that is given to a particular artwork. Authenticity can therefore be this kind of illusion. It's only as real as our belief in it.

Yeah. Belief in the power of authenticity in a work of art is kind of like belief in the value of money. Like it is very real if people believe in it and that's like a whole culture can function on top of it. But if people don't believe money is valuable, then it ceases being useful. And I think you could say that the same is true in some ways about qualities of art. Yeah. Yeah. And that's one of the reasons it can be so hurtful and it can be so disappointing to find out that.

Something that you were invested in, that you found beautiful, that you had this reaction to is, in fact, not 100 percent what you thought it was. And there are variations on that theme throughout our appreciation of all sorts of works of art and music and so forth. Yeah. Now, speaking of this, there are it is worth noting there are noteworthy cases of works in art collections that turned out to be fakes. These still pop up.

But there's also the reverse. There are works previously judged to be fakes, but then upon closer scrutiny or new information or someone else takes a look at them, they turn out to be authentic. So it's interesting how at least at times this can go back and forth.

Was this the case with Da Vinci's Lady with Ermine? I feel like I was reading about that not too long ago. Or at least for a while there were questions about who had really painted it or was it a true Da Vinci, but I think now it is largely thought to be. I'm not sure because I wasn't reading about that particular painting in reference to this. But there have been various works that have had this story. Yeah.

where it's dismissed as a fake, maybe a very good fake, but then we come back and we realize that it's not the case. And then it's also worth noting that I think in different artistic traditions, there's a different relationship with copying masterworks from the past, to the extent that they may be copied, especially as a learning tool.

method for, you know, for artists and so forth. Well, that actually connects to something that I wanted to talk about today with respect to authenticity in art and

I wanted to talk about a famous essay in the history of art criticism by the philosopher and critic Walter Benjamin called The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. This was published in 1935, and the core claim of Benjamin's argument in this essay is that what he calls mechanical reproduction, meaning techniques such as lithography, photography, and film, have

have fundamentally changed the way art functions within culture and changed what art means to us. And this essay brings in a lot of different ideas, including religious ideas and political ones. Walter Benjamin was a Jewish German writing this at the time of the early years of the Third Reich, and he was concerned with ways that technology evolved.

could change how art would be used for propaganda and mass manipulation and all kinds of stuff like that. I'm going to get less into the political implications here, so I can't cover everything in this essay, but I did want to focus on his ideas related to authenticity. So Benjamin talks about how, like you were mentioning a minute ago, Rob,

Art has always been, in principle, reproducible to some extent. A work of art made by a person, such as a painting or a sculpture or a performance of a song or a dance, can always be imitated and copied to some extent by another person.

But a copy made by mere imitation is never exact. It can only strive to be similar by degree. And it is difficult and laborious to reproduce. But a big part of the training of artists in centuries past used to be just trying to reproduce other works of art by artists who came before. And one thing I would add is that I think a lot of creative people, even today, are

Discover their own original creative genius first by trying to copy things, trying to copy things when they're young and in the laborious process of making manual copies of somebody else's work of art.

Because they can't make a perfect copy, they end up diverging from the original out of necessity because they can't do it. And then in this divergence, start expressing their own unique style, which then develops into what that person will use when creating original works of their own.

Yeah, yeah. And we see this throughout history, sometimes in like rigorous art training in different cultures. But even today, like there's the sort of there are various examples of this, some more current, but some also going back several decades where what begins as an exercise in fan fiction is.

becomes either the work in and of itself or sort of the ideas that spring out of that work become a new creation, something that is wholly original to a given author or creator of some sort. Yeah, totally. So I think imitation is not something that should be shunned within art. It's like a necessary part of the development of artistic styles and has been all throughout history.

But one of the things is that while we've always been able to imitate other people's performances and artworks, over the centuries, gradually higher fidelity techniques for mechanically reproducing works of art have come online.

So you might originally have things like the crude ability to stamp coins in the ancient world. You could reproduce a crude design over and over on coins. Later, you get woodcut printing, lithography. And finally, in the 19th century, the photograph and the motion picture.

And early in this essay, though this wasn't quite yet true at the time, Benjamin quotes the French poet Paul Valéry making a striking prediction about the future of image and sound reproduction technology. So Valéry says, this is in translation, "...just as water, gas, and electricity are brought into our houses from far off to satisfy our needs in response to a minimal effort..."

So we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign. Whoa. Reading that made me sit back because obviously that is the world we live in now. I mean, it's...

We don't stop to appreciate it often, but how historically strange it is that we can summon a photograph of almost anything that has been photographed just by making a few gestures with the hand.

Yeah, it is crazy. Like to the point where it feels like we are being deprived of something when we can't summon such an image. Yeah.

And yet there are plenty of exceptions to this. Films that haven't been restored, that aren't as widely available, or in some cases, films that have been lost. And there is something just kind of crazy about that, you know, given how much is out there and how much we have to realize that there are works that are just gone to history and we'll never be able to bring them back. Yeah. So obviously this gets us really thinking about history.

you know, the preservation of art and our access to it and what it means when we're not able to see something we want. But also, it, I think, should make us think about how this kind of access and this kind of relationship

to images of art, and this would include all forms of art. I mean, we're talking especially about visual art, but this would include recordings of musical performances, recordings of plays and other types of physical performances, sculptures, imagery of sculptures, films, of course.

We should think about how this kind of media technologically mediated access to these works of art changes the way we experience them and what they mean to us.

So in this essay, Benjamin argues that when we interact with a mechanically reproduced copy of a work of art, for example, a photographic print of a painting for just so you can imagine something specific in your mind. Let's say the anatomy lesson by Rembrandt. I, in fact, copied and pasted an image of this painting into our outline here. So let that marinate, given what we're talking about.

But so when we when we access, say, a photographic print of a painting like this, we may be deceived into thinking that we are looking at the painting, but we're not, even though by some measures you could argue that the photograph is a, quote, perfect reproduction.

not subject to the little variations and deficiencies that would emerge if a skilled forger tried to paint a copy of it by hand. There are still differences. First of all, though we think of photographic reproduction as perfect, there are things that can't really be captured very well in a photo, such as the three-dimensionality of some paintings. Some paintings really kind of come off the canvas.

And, you know, the texture of the brush strokes and the pile up of the painting and stuff can cast little shadows and so forth. So there's that. There's how the painting interacts with light in the room, how it changes over time, etc.,

However, even if we had a machine to make three-dimensionally, chemically exact physical copies of a painting, Benjamin says there would still be a difference because he writes, quote, "...even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element, its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be."

This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years, as well as the various changes in its ownership.

So by virtue of the fact that a physical work of art, the original, is a single object, it has a history associated with it that is not true of the history of the copies.

Now, we might well think, well, when I look at a painting, I don't really care if it's the physically original copy. I don't really care whether the painter's hands touched it. I don't care who owned this physical artifact or where it was kept at what time. That's not interesting information to me. And maybe you don't care about that. That's something maybe I don't think about all that often when I Google an image of a painting.

But it's possible that the fact that we don't care about those things is a result of existing in a world where our response to art has been conditioned by ubiquitous mechanical reproduction. And it's interesting to compare these experiences of encountering art in person and seeing it online and so forth. Like, I can think of examples on my own part that went both ways. Like, for instance, I first saw the paintings of Irving Norman painting.

in person um and that i was really captivated by just like they're they're huge and like it's a near you're there you're in this work's presence and you just kind of feel like you're falling into it and you get to sort of walk back and forth checking out little details of it and like that's one of the great experiences of seeing a work of art in person is you get to have that prolonged multi-sensory experience with the piece i mean you know maybe you know

You shouldn't touch it. Don't go and lick it or anything. But still, like there are various things going on, like even things not directly tied to the painting, like just hearing like the, you know, the echoes in the museum and so forth. And yet there are other works like I had long been a fan of this particular work by Arnold Buchlan, Isle of the Dead. There are various versions of this that he painted. It's a very iconic painting that is often referenced in film.

of this strange, dark island that is not like the symbolism is harder to piece apart. Like it does. It's not just an island. It looks like a skull, but it is very captivating and does seem to have this grim darkness to it. And yet when I saw one of these versions that had been painted by the artist in person at the Met,

years back. I was initially disappointed because this didn't necessarily have a lot to do with the painting itself, but like, you know, the lighting in the room for some reason, it was, it's a very dark work in terms of just like the black pigment and

And the light was catching it in a weird way. And I think like there were a lot of people moving through that space at the time. So I didn't like feel like it was in its presence and so forth. So there are all these different factors that can influence the way that we encounter a piece of.

Online versus in person, though, at the end of the day, like when you encounter it online, how much time are we really giving that work before we click on to the next thing? Whereas if you're in the room with it, unless you're just speeding through the museum, you've got to give it some time. You've got to like breathe with it for a little bit. Yeah, yeah, I think that's true. And it's absolutely right what you're saying that like just little variations in the physicality.

physical experience in the room of seeing an artwork can change the way you relate to it. But, you know, there's another way that I think that mechanical reproduction has affected your relationship to these works of art, which is that you had seen them before you saw them. That's right. Yeah. So the pure impact of Isle of the Dead was lost on me because I knew exactly what to expect. And I was looking for all of these things.

And I had an experience already in mind. And clearly that wasn't the artist's intent that we would go into it having seen the image before, before we saw him. ♪

Let's be real. Life happens. Kids spill. Pets shed. And accidents are inevitable. That's why you need a washable sofa that can keep up. Our sofas are fully machine washable, inside and out, so you can say goodbye to stains and hello to worry-free living. Made with liquid and stain-resistant fabrics, they're kid-proof, pet-friendly,

It's time to upgrade to a stress-free, mess-proof sofa.

Visit WashableSofas.com today and save. That's WashableSofas.com. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply. Getting diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, or MBC, which is breast cancer that is spread to other parts of the body, can feel overwhelming. But you have options. Real women across the country with HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC are taking iBrand's PalboCyclib, a Pfizer product.

Prescription Eyebrands 125mg tablets with an aromatase inhibitor is for adults with HR positive HER2 negative MBC is the first hormonal based therapy. Eyebrands may cause low white blood cell counts that may lead to serious infections. Eyebrands may cause severe inflammation of the lungs. Both of these can lead to death. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening chest pain, cough or trouble breathing. Before taking Eyebrands, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are nursing, pregnant or plan to be.

All medical conditions you have and about all the medicines you take. For more information about side effects, talk to your doctor. Talk to your doctor about Ibrance, the number one prescribed FDA-approved oral combination treatment for HR-positive HER2-negative MBC. Visit Ibrance.com or call 1-844-9-IBRANCE.

Here everybody is your favorite play cousin Junior from the Steering Warning Show. The Toyota Tundra and Tacoma are designed to outlast and outlive, combining raw power with precision engineering. All backed by Toyota's legendary reputation for reliability. Climb inside a Tundra and experience the uncompromising strength with its available i-Force Max engine. The Tundra delivers exceptional power, torque, and towing capacity.

the spacious and high-tech cabin keeps you connected on the run. Or check out a Tacoma, agile, dependable, and unstoppable. The Tacoma is designed for those who go beyond the trail. Stay ahead of the pack with available off-road features like crawl control. Or break out your tunes with the available portable JBL speaker. Toyota trucks are built to last. Year after year, mile

Hey there folks.

I am Matt. And I'm Joel from the How To Money Show. Matt, it's April. I've got spring break on my mind. Please, tell me you got something fun lined up. Oh, dude, typically I am a planner, but we're actually switching things up this year. We're going to go a bit more spontaneous. I've been searching on Airbnb for some inspiration. You know, we've narrowed it down to trying to find some warmer temperatures. We kind of got that spring fever, so we're going to try to find something along the coast. Maybe...

Maybe some sand to dip my toes into. I like it. But how about you? Okay, so we've actually got our plans locked in. I'm taking the fam to this charming little Bavarian-style town called Helen. It's up in the Georgia mountains. I know about Helen. Yeah, well, I found the perfect cabin on Airbnb, completely with a hot tub, which I'm definitely going to need after running a trail half marathon while I'm up there, too. Oh, that is right. I forgot about the half marathon, man. It sounds like an adventure experience.

And you know what? While you're enjoying that hot tub, you could actually have your own place listed on Airbnb, earning some extra cash while you are away. True. And now with Airbnb's co-host feature, I hear it's easier than ever. For anyone who's been overwhelmed by the idea of hosting, a co-host can do the hosting for you and help manage your reservations and your guests. Find a co-host at Airbnb.com slash host. So here's where we get to the idea of authenticity as a concept in art. For

Walter Benjamin, a work of art possesses an authenticity that is related to its physical uniqueness and history as an object, or I guess also as like a performance. So an original painting or sculpture or a certain performance of a piece of music or a play are all physically unique objects or situations.

And in their original form, they have this authenticity that cannot be reproduced. That is their original uniqueness in form. By mass producing a photographic or filmed copy of a work of art or performance, the technical reproduction is stripped of that physical and situational authenticity and then propagated in this copied format.

And the sum of the qualities that are lost when a work of art is mechanically reproduced in this way is what Benjamin refers to as the aura of the original. The aura is all of this stuff about the physically unique original that does not get carried over in mechanical copies.

So one commonly cited example of how the aura affects the experience of art is by a change in the location of the experience. Benjamin writes, quote, The cathedral leaves its locale to be received in the studio of a lover of art. The choral production performed in an auditorium or in the open air resounds in the drawing room.

And, you know, this makes me think of something with regard to movies, actually, even though cinema is kind of different because cinema is an art form explicitly designed with mechanical reproduction in mind. You know, you know, when you make a movie that they're going to be print copies of it, that will be taken all over and shown in theaters all over the land. Nevertheless, I can recall.

Interviews I've watched and read with multiple different film directors expressing a common sentiment, which is heartfelt anguish at the idea of somebody watching one of their movies on a phone. Changing the venue and format of viewing fundamentally alters what the director meant for the audience to experience.

So if you made a movie thinking people would be seeing it in a movie theater and then they're watching it on a phone, it may be a faithful reproduction, pretty high fidelity visuals and sound of the film you made. But it's not what you had in mind. It's a different thing.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, a number of directors have said this in recent years. And you also hear fans say this. I mean, I've said this as well. I come back from seeing Dune Part 2 and I say, this is a movie you need to see on the big screen.

Now, do I think it should only be seen on the big screen? No, I'm going to watch it on a smaller screen at some point. That's probably going to be my second viewing. I might even watch parts of it on a phone. And that's my choice, you know. So I think we sometimes it can get a little overblown and folks can get a little carried away with it. But I do think, yeah, we've talked about this.

in reference to particular films on Weird House before. For instance, when we talked about Piranha Mandir, the Indian horror movie, and we talked about like the intended, not only the intended scope of the picture, but sort of like the intended viewing experience, that this was not something, they didn't make this film thinking about

you know, two podcasters watching it by themselves in their individual households, you know, on their laptop or on their TV. Now, this is something lots of people were going to go to a movie theater to enjoy together, find different things to enjoy in the film, depending on how old they were and so forth and what their tastes were. And it was going to be, you know, like kind of a party, according to what I read about this film's original release. Yeah, I think that's absolutely true that some films are made with

with a large viewing audience all gathered together and experiencing it at the same time in mind. But at least with the example of film, you could say that film is something that is made with the understanding initially that it's going to be copied and viewed in different contexts and stuff. The creators have to understand that will happen over time.

You know, you got to wonder with like some of these older works of art, like what the creator might have imagined or not even just what the creator imagined, just like whether it was in the creator's mind or not, the changes, the kind of unexpected changes that come in how people experience these works of art. So Benjamin says that as a result of the necessary stripping of aura and authenticity from a work of art in the process of mechanical reproduction,

You know, it not only affects how that copy of the art is experienced directly, it like changes our relationship to art in general. It changes how we see what art is. So a culture of mechanical reproduction sort of undermines the authority and spiritual power of a work of art by, in Benjamin's words, detaching it from tradition. Right.

And he develops this idea of art traditions as historically intertwined with religious traditions. For example, he talks about how a lot of art emerged in deep history from religious practices and ritual. Paintings and sculpture depicted the gods or legendary heroes or mythic encounters. Music was sung in worship of the gods.

And in this tradition, religious art was thought to have a value that was independent of its value as an object to be perceived and admired by an audience. This traditional religious value of art is what he calls its cult value. And I'll read a quote from the essay here. Benjamin writes, quote,

Artistic production begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve an occult. One may assume that what mattered was their existence, not their being on view. The elk portrayed by the man of the Stone Age on the walls of his cave was an instrument of magic.

He did expose it to his fellow men, but in the main it was meant for the spirits. Today, the cult value would seem to demand that the work of art remain hidden. Certain statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella. Certain madonnas remain covered nearly all year round. Certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on the ground level.

With the emancipation of the various art practices from ritual go increasing opportunities for the exhibition of their products.

Now, one little note here in the specific example of cave art, I think we should be clear that we don't know exactly what its function was and we should be careful about speculating too much there. But certainly with the later art forms he mentions, like occurring within written history, you know, the sculptures and the statues he cites, we know that lots of them were thought to be important because of their inherent existence and not just because people would look at them.

That's a great point. I mean, this also applies to...

various ancient prehistoric examples of art that for the most part are best viewed from an aerial vehicle. It's not necessarily that people were going to view it. And again, we get into the same problem of maybe not knowing exactly what the intent was or how they imagined a viewer of this piece, be it human or divine.

You're talking about like the Nazca designs and stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's an excellent example of things that like could not be viewed in their total form by a person at the time. But does that mean it had to have been aliens because that you had to have somebody flying overhead to see it? No, not necessarily. No, I don't think it means it had to be aliens at all. It probably means that there was some value of this work of art other than a person being able to see the whole thing at once. Mm hmm.

So considering this, Benjamin talks about how over time, artistic culture emerged that separated these works of art, these items from their cult value by removing them from their original context and putting them in museums and galleries and sending them traveling around the world and mobile exhibitions, or just by having people observe them in their original place, but without the original ritual context.

And this shift from what Benjamin calls cult value to exhibition value seems to the author here to decrease the power and authority of the artwork. But it also creates a culture with a different idea of what art is for and what makes a piece of art valuable and important. And.

And you might imagine all kinds of examples of how this would change the way people evaluate and relate to art. When culture tells you that this is a thing you go to a museum and look at and appreciate as an expression of emotion and display of technical artistic skill, rather than a thing that maybe lives in a temple and somehow depicts channels or honors a God or a divine idea, even if nobody's there to look at it.

And so I think Benjamin's idea is that mechanical reproduction causes a sort of continuous along the spectrum, a similar shift in the value of art, even further away from the traditional cult value of art, which is somehow related to the authenticity of an artwork. According again to Benjamin's definition of authenticity being like the original uniqueness of the artwork itself.

And divorces art further from its tradition of cult value, divorces it from the aura, and it causes a devaluation of the art itself and changes its meaning. It becomes something else, something more like a product.

Now, you could acknowledge, as I think Benjamin did, that there could be both good and bad consequences that arise from changing the meaning of art through mechanical reproduction. Just one thing that comes to my mind, I don't know that this is how it works, but I wonder if

Yeah.

Maybe that helps also broaden one's appreciation for art that is from outside your own cultural or religious tradition. I'm not sure it works that way, but that's possible. So you can see good sides as well. Yeah, I mean, not everybody can travel to see these various works in person.

And therefore, having some other type of experience with that work is ideal. I mean, it allows more people to experience it to some degree. Or in some cases would allow anyone to experience it at all. Yeah. But on the other hand, though, I don't know. I have some questions, but I think I agree at least in part with what he's saying about like the

This culture that arises from the mass production of images of artworks does in some way cause a devaluation of like, uh, of the power and authenticity of the original that you, that you can imagine how you would experience an artwork differently. If you could not just summon on your phone, a picture of the Mona Lisa or the anatomy lesson or whatever.

whenever you wanted to, or even before that, see a picture of it in a book, you know, or see a picture reproduced in a newspaper or whatever. I guess the irony is that I've never lived at a time when there was not mass mechanical reproduction of art in all its forms. So I can't really compare this world to the before times. I never lived in the before times. So I don't know. You know, I only know the world where you can buy prints of the Mona Lisa for five bucks. Yeah.

I guess one thing that we might compare it to is various art installations and also these sort of attraction-themed...

um art exhibits that we that we find a lot of times these days where there is something inherent to the art maybe it's on a scale that can't be captured in a photograph or it is like an environment that you were engaging in or it's just something as simple as a sculpture garden you know like yes you can see like it's not two-dimensional there's a three-dimensional reality to it there are multiple angles from which to consider it and therefore um

you know, it is an experience in a way that, uh, that I think everybody can wrap their heads around. And maybe the challenge there is to realize that, that, that all these other forms of like two dimensional, uh,

visual art. Of course, you know, there's often more than just those two dimensions to consider with the painting. But still, like, even famous paintings are also this sort of an experience. Like, there is more going on there. Even if you're not, like, standing in its shadow or getting a selfie made with it, like, there is still an experience to be had in its presence. Absolutely. Though, again, we also...

have to wonder like how the general culture of mechanical reproduction has affected even our ability to relate to physical originals now. Right, right. Because when we do go to those big art installations, if they're one that is, if it's an art, if it's an installation that is marketed as, hey, get your selfie made with this art, with this environment, then we're coming back right back around to turning it into a mass produced image.

And mass produced and then personalized image that then goes into your social media feed. I should add, finally, that there is there's a whole bunch of other stuff this essay goes into about the role of art and mechanical reproduction of art and how that relates to politics and the role of art in in manipulating mass opinion and revolution and things like that.

All right.

I was thinking about this because I was reading an interesting take on all of this from author Jason Tugao on Psychology Today, which tackles the subject of art forgery via neuroaesthetics, which is a discipline that looks at the neural basis of how we perceive, contemplate, and even create works of art. So in neuroaesthetics, which is very much a young and continually evolving area of neuroscience, because it depends on what we know and understand about neuroaesthetics,

the brain and neural networks and so forth. There's this idea that art engages the social brain

as viewing and considering artwork depends on some of the same networks involved in complex social behavior. Interesting. Okay. Furthermore, focused consideration of a work of art engages a number of senses, invoking a pronounced consideration of space as well as societal, cultural, and individual context. So even if you, and I think we can, if we're really self-analyzed, we might realize this is the case even if we're at that museum and we're like, okay, I'm going to stand in the presence of this art. You can't

You can't help but also take into account all these other things. There's a lot going on. On some level, you're going to be aware of how you look looking at this piece of art. You are going to be thinking about your own culture, the culture from which this art or artist emerged and so forth.

It is nearly maybe I reveal my own shallowness or something by saying this, but I think it is nearly impossible to experience a work of art without having involuntary thoughts while you're having the experience of what other people would think about it. And.

Yeah.

So there's a lot going on when we look at art. But Togal citing feeling of beauty author Gabriel Starr says that the result, the ideal result here when we are viewing art is a feeling of harmony, a harmony that can be disrupted if we learn that the piece of art we're viewing is not authentic, which is to say, you know, fake to some degree or another.

And this makes sense. This falls in line with what we've been talking about. I think we can easily turn to various experiences of disruption in our association with any given work of art or creative project. You know, what happens when you find out a piece of work is to some degree inauthentic?

What about when you find out that the creator, to some degree, is inauthentic or they are not what you thought they were? Your appreciation of a work may not depend 100% on that idea that you had about its creator's authenticity or character, but a change is still likely to occur. And I think we can all think to examples of that in our own appreciation of the arts. Hmm.

Yeah. There is a feeling of betrayal that comes when you find out something you really don't like about the creator of a work of art that you do like that is not present when you just find out something you don't like about a random public figure. Yeah, yeah. And it can be a struggle sometimes, you know? And at times it can feel like,

If you enjoy a particular work of art or film or music, you don't want to know too much about the person who created it because the more you know, the more likely you are to find something that you disagree with or don't like and then could tarnish the work of art. But then the other side is,

There's also lots of stuff you can find out about an artist that enhances your experience of a given work. So it's it's often it often seems like it's worth diving into. You know, you may find something that enhances your understanding of art that is already enriching your life. Nevertheless, I think even if you're not thinking about the artist, I totally see what you were saying here about this source material.

And claiming that that our experience of art is to a large degree engaging the social brain. That seems very true to me that whether it's, you know, that music, the band you like, you worry if they're the real deal or if they're fake or it's movies or it's it's painting. I feel like it is.

it's inescapable that there's some part of engaging with a work of art. That's kind of like meeting a person, or it's kind of like considering interactions between a social group that, that rings very true to me. All right. Well, we're going to go ahead and cut it off right here, but obviously we'd love to hear from you out there because I know that listeners inevitably have thoughts about all of this, about inauthenticity and authenticity and fakery. Uh,

uh in the in the very in the various mediums the various art forms that we've discussed here or in you know life in general uh so write in we would love to hear from you we'll throw out that email address here in a minute but just to remind you the stuff to blow your mind is primarily a science and culture podcast with core episodes on tuesdays and thursdays short form episode on wednesdays on mondays we do listener mail and on fridays we set aside most serious concerns to just talk about a

You can follow us on social media. Wherever you get your social media, we're probably there. Rate and review the show wherever you have the power to do so. That really helps us out, and we appreciate it. And I believe that's it. What else do you have for us here, Joe? Nothing else except to say our regular audio producer, J.J. Posway, is out this week. So huge thanks to our guest producer, Paul Deccant. Thank you, Paul.

Let's see. If you have anything you'd like to get in touch with us with, if you'd like to suggest a topic for a future episode, if you would like to send us feedback on this episode or any other, or if you'd just like to say hi, you can email us at contact at stuff to blow your mind dot com.

Stuff to Blow Your Mind is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app. Apple Podcasts are wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

I was in Whole Foods the other day looking for a fun little bevy to go with my lunch, and I found my new obsession. SunSip is a gut-healthy soda from HealthAid, and they just dropped two new flavors. Dr. Bubbles is a fresh take on the doctor's signature blend of sweet fruit and subtle spices, while Cream Soda serves up velvety vanilla and sweet caramel. And the best part?

SunSip has gut-healthy prebiotics, vitamins, and minerals, all with 40 calories or less. Grab these new SunSip flavors on sale now. Only at Whole Foods in the beverage cooler near HealthAid Kombucha.

Time for a sofa upgrade? Introducing Anabay Sofas, where designer style meets budget-friendly prices. Anabay brings you the ultimate in furniture innovation with a modular design that allows you to rearrange your space effortlessly. Perfect for both small and large spaces, Anabay is the only machine-washable sofa

inside and out. Say goodbye to stains and messes with liquid and stain resistant fabrics that make cleaning easy. Liquids simply slide right off. Designed for custom comfort, our high resilience foam lets you choose between a sink in feel or a supportive memory foam blend. Plus,

our pet-friendly, stain-resistant fabrics ensure your sofa stays beautiful for years. Don't compromise quality for price. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your living space today. Sofas start at just $699 with no risk returns

and a 30-day money-back guarantee. Get up to 60% off, plus free shipping and free returns. Shop now at washablesofas.com. Offers are subject to change, and certain restrictions may apply. Hey, everybody, it's your favorite plate cousin, Junior, from the Steve Harvey Morning Show. You know, the Toyota Tundra and Tacoma are designed to outlast and outlive, backed by Toyota's legendary reputation for reliability. So get in the Tundra with available i-Force Max Hybrid engine, delivering exceptional torque and towing capacity. Or check out a Tacoma.

with available off-road features like crawl control. It can take you beyond the trails. Toyota trucks are built to last year after year, mile after mile. So don't wait. Get yours today. Visit buyatoyota.com. For deals and more, Toyota, let's go places. It's tax season, and by now, I know we're all a bit tired of numbers. But here's an important one you need to hear. $16.5 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud last year.

Here's another: 20%. That's the overall increase in identity theft related to tax fraud in 2024 alone. But it's not all grim news. Here's a good number: 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US-based restoration specialists will fix it, backed by another good number: the Million Dollar Protection Plan. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back.

Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with LifeLock Identity Theft Protection for tax season and beyond. Join now and save up to 40% your first year. Call 1-800-LIFELOCK and use promo code IHEART or go to lifelock.com slash IHEART for 40% off. Terms apply.