Authenticity versus Spontaneity and how it is interpreted

jupiterswoon

jupiterswoon

Permanent Fixture
MBTI
ISFP
Enneagram
3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh3R90HAyOQ&feature=g-hist

Interesting video here where she is wondering what makes a person authentic.

I think where she gets confused is that authenticity doesn't have to do with spontaneity. A person can be very authentic, but perhaps shy or quiet- although people might interpret a louder person as being more "authentic" what they mean to say is that person is creating more of an "impression" on the viewer. Although, a more developed person whether introverted or extroverted should be able to describe their own ideas with more accuracy than a less developed person. Some people are just better at bullshitting and co-opting, than coming up with original ideas. Ultimately, we need the authentic people, and the talkers to get ideas moving around.

Discuss!
 
i agree that authenticity and spontaneity aren't 'at odds' with each other.
i admit i didn't watch the video for that reason. it would have just irritated the hell out of me all the way through.

to be authentic is something i strive for every day.
to me it means being true to one's core values, true hearted in all one's dealings, having an set of opinions and beliefs that were arrived at by honest searching of self and life in general, then living (out loud) by those principles - even when it's uncomfortable or unpopular.
 
I'd like to point out that being authentic and original is a different thing.
So is to be authentic and honest in method vs in intention, amount, direction.... those are different.

but comparing authenticity and spontaneity... hmm. Interesting; indeed, those two are somewhat easy to mistake.
 
I suppose it depends on how you define 'authentic'.

There are some things that take time and effort to express, and some things that will probably come out better if you don't think about it too much.

You can't really blame someone for wanting to reconsider their position multiple times before they express it publicly... for important things you sort of need to transcend the visceral in order to be more diplomatic towards the other side, and also in order to consider directions that you otherwise wouldn't have. On the other hand I suppose you also allow time for all of the insecurities to creep in and you end up aiming to please as opposed to expressing something honest.

When you have huge projects that have multiple components and demand focus and attention to detail, if you just went into it blind and counted on spontaneity to make everything happen, then there's a very real possibility that you're going to get lost or produce something that doesn't make any sense or is subpar... but I suppose it would depend on your style, how skilled you are, as well as what your expectations are.
 
Everyone is authentic and you can't help but be anything other than authentic.
 
Apone said:
I suppose it depends on how you define 'authentic'.

There are some things that take time and effort to express, and some things that will probably come out better if you don't think about it too much.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
UBERROGO said:
Everyone is authentic and you can't help but be anything other than authentic.
Click to expand...

I would disagree- I think that in some sense of the word, every person is made up of different genes, and might express things in different ways, but that often times, when I meet people- they might not necessarily have original ideas or be communicating any of their own ideas. From my experiences, most people tend to rehash things that they've heard from other people. I've had people rehash my own ideas to me, pretending that they were their own. Sometimes one idea is so good, that I'll go onto youtube, and hear twenty people rehashing that same idea.
 
jupiterswoon said:
I would disagree- I think that in some sense of the word, every person is made up of different genes, and might express things in different ways, but that often times, when I meet people- they might not necessarily have original ideas or be communicating any of their own ideas. From my experiences, most people tend to rehash things that they've heard from other people. I've had people rehash my own ideas to me, pretending that they were their own. Sometimes one idea is so good, that I'll go onto youtube, and hear twenty people rehashing that same idea.
Click to expand...
I don't think being origional has anything to do with being authentic.
 
UBERROGO said:
I don't think being origional has anything to do with being authentic.
Click to expand...

Ironically, now we are talking about the difference between authenticity and originality- instead of authenticity and spontaneity....

Originality:
1.belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.
2.new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.
3.arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.
4.capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.
5.created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.

Authentic:
1. not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique.
2. having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master.
3. entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy: an authentic report on poverty in Africa.
4. Law . executed with all due formalities: an authentic deed.
5. Music
 
I still would argue, that although people are authentic in and of themselves- in other words, they are not clones and they have their own unique gene structures and forms of expression... Most people are not authentic in their expression, they might genuinely feel or think what they are expressing, but often times they might be co-opting the words/ideas/phrases/mannerisms/style of someone else. It is rare to me that I hear someone express something not "false or copied; genuine; real".... Most people are trying to become archetypes that they saw on TV or read in books, or saying things that other people have said. They might have an authentic thought that perhaps someone has expressed before, and that they are expressing for the first time, and that thought would still be "authentic" because they are formulating it from within themselves- but people often repeat advice, repeat jokes, repeat the same stories- and they might put a different spin on it, but it is still, ultimately, not authentic.

I know with art, that if you are using someone else's piece as the starting point, for example: Mona Lisa, but you want to make her into an abstraction- it is still Mona Lisa. When I look at these pieces done showing people's own interpretation of Mona Lisa, all I think about is still Leonardo Da Vinci.
They haven't come up with their own symbols, their own words to describe things. But it could be argued that limitations on a person's authenticity can be pared down to what they have been exposed to in their lives. If they have been well educated, or self-educated, they are more likely to expand upon greater concepts than those with a limited education. Just like if you have a limited palate for painting, you might create a more simplistic piece, than a person with a wide range of colors on your palate. Although, it could be that a great artist would only need a limited palate to create a great masterpiece. I like making these comparisons with art, because then you can literally see how some people create systems of thought/expression based off of other people's authentic ideas. Although it could be argued that in reality, because we are all humans, that nothing is really authentic.



03-MP-MonaLisa-.webpmona-lisa-03.webproy lichtenstein.webp137711701075737976_nxuNyuAG_b.webp
 
Last edited:
Another thing to point out is that all of these artists were artists in their own right- Picasso, Lichtenstein, etc (I don't know the origins of the other two pieces), but that in this case is was not as original as their most well known pieces...
Examples shown below:View attachment 16162View attachment 16163

Then it gets into even more grey area: because their Mona Lisa pieces are authentic to them, but they are not "the authentic" Mona Lisa....
 
jupiterswoon said:
Ironically, now we are talking about the difference between authenticity and originality- instead of authenticity and spontaneity....

Originality:
1.belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding.
2.new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising.
3.arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history.
4.capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker.
5.created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet.

Authentic:
1. not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique.
2. having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master.
3. entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy: an authentic report on poverty in Africa.
4. Law . executed with all due formalities: an authentic deed.
5. Music
Click to expand...


I guess I just dont think of it like this. I think everyone is authentic, there's just no plainer way to say it.

You are authentically you no matter what.
Are you the type of person who likes to copy other ideas? You are still expressing the authentic you.
Are you the type who likes to ride on the coat tails of others? You are still expressing the authentic you.

Most people are from a culture that has other people in that culture - they are bound to be alike and have the same ideas. I dont think this makes them inauthentic.

Maybe I think of it more as definition #3 instead of #1... idk.

Other people have good ideas, I dont think it is a bad thing to add those ideas to yourself. I get the gist that improving yourself in this way would cause the person to become inauthentic to you and that being inauthentic is a bad thing.

IDK if it is relevant but there are only going to be so many legitimate ideas at any given period of time, with 6 billion people on the world someone is sure to overlap with someone else. I dont think you are inauthentic to be similar to someone in this way.
[MENTION=4855]JGirl[/MENTION], why are sociopaths not authentic?
 
This topic confuses me.
Are politicians authentic? :)
 
Ada said:
This topic confuses me.
Are politicians authentic? :)
Click to expand...

Lol, you tell me....

I think bringing the politicians into it- might be too unrelated.
 
UBERROGO said:
[MENTION=4855]JGirl[/MENTION], why are sociopaths not authentic?
Click to expand...

based on what i believe being authentic means, they absolutely do not/cannot fit the criteria
(from my original post)
to me it means being true to one's core values, true hearted in all one's dealings, having an set of opinions and beliefs that were arrived at by honest searching of self and life in general, then living (out loud) by those principles - even when it's uncomfortable or unpopular
 
I view an authentic person as someone who is spontaneous and childlike. At least this is what my therapist has tried to persuade me of.
 
JGirl said:
based on what i believe being authentic means, they absolutely do not/cannot fit the criteria
(from my original post)
to me it means being true to one's core values, true hearted in all one's dealings, having an set of opinions and beliefs that were arrived at by honest searching of self and life in general, then living (out loud) by those principles - even when it's uncomfortable or unpopular
Click to expand...



What you are saying has more to do with whether or not a person has a moral compass, and is unrelated to whether or not a person is authentic or original, although, a person who has more of a moral compass might be more likely to be original or authentic- I think that the question of whether a sociopath could be authentic or original is a little too tangential.
 
jupiterswoon said:
What you are saying has more to do with whether or not a person has a moral compass, and is unrelated to whether or not a person is authentic or original, although, a person who has more of a moral compass might be more likely to be original or authentic- I think that the question of whether a sociopath could be authentic or original is a little too tangential.
Click to expand...
i think morality and authenticity are related to a degree but by no means do they have to go together. you can be a satanist, sacrifice neighborhood cats if that's what you'e into, gawd forbid, and still be authentic.
a sociopath, from my direct experience, lacks the ability of introspection- which i believe is necessary to have a degree of authenticity.
 
JGirl said:
i think morality and authenticity are related to a degree but by no means do they have to go together. you can be a satanist, sacrifice neighborhood cats if that's what you'e into, gawd forbid, and still be authentic.
a sociopath, from my direct experience, lacks the ability of introspection- which i believe is necessary to have a degree of authenticity.
Click to expand...

Sociopath: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath

A sociopath is probably so concerned with conning others that they might not have time to be authentic, they are "con artists" after all- so their piece of genuine art might be pulling a fraud. I don't know, I think it's still too subjective....

Can you elaborate more? Or explain what made you draw comparisons between the two?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top