The OAIS Reference Model provides a method for documenting the authenticity concerns addressed in this paper. Brian Lavoie notes, “Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model is a conceptual framework for an archival system dedicated to preserving and maintaining access to digital information over the long term.” Librarians and archivists use the OAIS Reference Model to articulate relevant concepts, data models, strategies, and workflow for archiving digital objects. One of the affordances of the OAIS Model is its ambiguity, which allows cultural heritage institutions to interpret different aspects of the model to suit their needs. This enables OAIS institutions to better manage the assets at stake. An important element of an OAIS is the “Preservation Description Information” (PDI) which must accompany each digital object in the archive as part of the larger “Archival Information Package,” or AIP (Lavoie 12). PDIs typically include information on provenance, fixity, reference (to other works/objects and to itself), and context. I argue that cultural heritage institutions using the OAIS Reference Model should include information on authenticities—including documentation for standards of authenticity—as part of the PDI context information for a given digital artwork. If users understand the criteria for authenticity, they will be better equipped to interact with and assess digital art on their own terms.

Equally important, OAIS institutions must consider their designated user community as part of authenticity considerations. The designated user community is, I argue, an important part of understanding authenticity and overall significance of digital objects. The example of Nalik cultural heritage objects demonstrates this importance well. In “Digital Heritage in a Melanesian Context,” Graeme Were discusses a digital cultural heritage project in which the Nalik people of New Ireland (Papua New Guinea) engage previously “lost” cultural objects, now rendered as 3D digital images. Were argues that, based on the Nalik community’s embrace of 3D versions of the “lost” objects, digital authenticity should be understood “in terms of completeness and integrity” (154). For the Nalik community, virtual versions of missing cultural objects gave them opportunities for repatriation and engagement with significant parts of their heritage (155). This example points to the importance of the designated user community. As stewards of cultural heritage, preservationists must work with the community to understand and transparently document criteria for digital art authenticity.

Conclusion: OAIS and Future Best Practices

Issues of authenticity in digital art preservation continue to generate debate and discussion. As scholars offer more nuanced views on authenticity, librarians and archivists must find ways to incorporate these perspectives into digital preservation strategies. The OAIS Model is a viable solution for documenting authenticity standards in digital artwork. By increasing transparency, OAIS institutions can collaborate with their designated user communities in dialogue on digital art and authenticity. As a result, users will have new opportunities to evaluate digital art and share perspectives on these issues of authenticity, new media, and preservation of significant digital heritage.