Recent scholarship on digital art preservation points to a paradigm shift, as scholars argue for a more complex and variable understanding of authenticity. This shift has great implications for how we understand authenticity in future art preservation strategies. One important concept to consider is Perla Innocenti's "dynamic authenticity." In “Rethinking Authenticity in Digital Art Preservation,” Perla Innocenti introduces the concept of “dynamic authenticity” in the context of digital artwork. As part of her research on “Preserving Computer-Generated Imagery,” Innocenti outlines two paradigms of digital art: digital art as a process of components interaction; and digital art as performance. First, Innocenti notes that digital art embodies an “interaction of many components,” including the artwork’s data files, the hardware and software required to display it, the projector, display screen, and relationships and interactions with viewers (64). Second, Innocenti distinguishes digital art from other forms of media by arguing all digital art is performance. As Innocenti notes, a digital artwork does not exist in the same way a painting on the wall exists; in many cases, it consists of code run for users to view and interact with the artwork. This “process of becoming,” she argues, is a performative act (Innocenti 65). Understanding digital art as performance requires us to revisit notions of authenticity, prioritizing “documentary evidence about the work genuine origins, custody, and ownership in the museum condition” (Innocenti 65). Per Innocenti’s view, authenticity is dynamic and varies according to the context (65).

MacNeil and Mak come to similar conclusions in “Constructions of Authenticity,” arguing for a context-dependent take on the subject. For different types of records, such as digital business records and art, there are different authenticity concerns. This means the criteria for authenticity will vary depending on the type of object being preserved. MacNeil and Mak suggest criteria for digital art authenticity, such as the ability to “provoke action, reaction, adoption, manipulation, and absorption” (46). This multifaceted view of authenticity gives cultural heritage stewards new possibilities for evaluating digital artwork. To maintain user trust, however, the authors recommend that librarians and archivists embrace transparency and document the parameters for preserving digital objects in their care. Digital preservation staff must document these standards so users can “make an informed decision about whether the materials meet their specific requirements for authenticity” (MacNeil and Mak 47). 

So how do we reconcile this new conceptual framework with current digital preservation best practices? Head to the next section to read more about my solution: using the OAIS Reference Model to document authenticity criteria in digital art.