(In)authenticity work: Constructing the realm of inauthenticity through Thomas Kinkade

Abstract

Although we know that authenticity work can add value to cultural products, little research explores efforts to claim the inauthenticity of products in commercial markets. The question arises, how does the critical reception of a popular culture phenomenon employ a form of authenticity work to determine the cultural products eligible -or ineligible -for the status of ''authentic?'' This research seeks to answer this question through a comprehensive content analysis of 328 documents from 1998 to 2012 related to the late artist Thomas Kinkade. We put forth the term inauthenticity work to explain how cultural intermediaries defined cultural products as antithetical to authenticity. Even in the face of immense commercial success, intermediaries constructed Kinkade's work as exemplifying inauthenticity, defining his work as mass produced, insincere, escapist, and oppositional to high art. Such inauthenticity work reveals that even if there is greater variance in cultural products eligible for authentication, intermediaries uphold culture boundaries through critically maintaining a cultural realm of inauthenticity.

Brand authenticity: 25 Years of research

“…One may also wish to emphasize the relationship to place (Beverland, 2005, 2006; Gilmore & Pine, 2007) as Red Stripe (a beer brand owned by Heineken whose tagline Born in Jamaica not only downplays the scientific aspects of its brewing but also sticks to its Jamaican roots) and Tiger of Sweden (whose slogan Designing Scandinavian craftsmanship since 1903 holds on to its core values and founding activities by highlighting its association with the aesthetics of Swedish minimalism). Moreover, Beverland (2006) points out the importance of appearing to stand above commercial considerations (also Abolhasani et al., 2017; Botterill, 2007; Koontz Anthony & Joshi, 2017), as well as stylistic consistency and congruence (e.g., Kowalczyk & Pounders, 2016; Schallehn et al., 2014) when communicating brand authenticity. For instance, football supporters all over the globe were furious in 2016 when it was rumored (as it turned out, entirely incorrectly) that the beloved lion was being axed from the new English Premier League logo.…”

“…Specifically, Cohen and Cohen (2012) note that, while the concept of brand authenticity has been widely discussed in consumer research, authentication as the social, political and cultural process by which brand authenticity is confirmed remains almost unexplored. Meanwhile, little research explores how consumers respond to different types of brand inauthenticity in commercial markets and popular culture (see Koontz Anthony & Joshi, 2017 for a notable exception).…”

A diamond in the rough: Inauthenticity and Gems TV

“…Hede and Thyne (2010), for example, suggest that despite what seems to be an increasing role of the inauthentic in contemporary consumer culture, much of the research in this area has remained focussed on the authentic. Inauthenticity is often alluded to in consumer research as harmful and to be avoided, but the processes of its negotiation are arguably the neglected side of authenticity research (Anthony and Joshi, 2017). Yet, authenticity and inauthenticity are dialectical.…”

“…Findings challenge marketers to consider inauthenticity as potentially conducive to consumer experiences of true self, and hence valued as a consumer activity. Nuanced are prevalent assumptions whereby authenticity is idealised, and inauthenticity constructed as problematic, in relation to consumption (Anthony and Joshi, 2017; Caruana et al, 2008).…”

The Psychology of Authenticity

“…Authenticity plays a key role in the pleasure that people derive from a variety of experiences, ranging from dining (Kovács, Carroll, & Lehman, 2014, 2016), to visiting museums (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Howard, 1992), to watching TV (Rose & Wood, 2005; Vosgerau, Wertenbroch, & Carmon, 2006). And, authenticity drives consumer preferences across a number of domains, including art, clothing, luxury goods, collectables, food and beverage, and everyday household products (e.g., Anthony & Joshi, 2016; Beverland, 2005, 2006; Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Botterill, 2007; Bullot & Reber, 2013; Dutton, 2003; Frazier, Gelman, Wilson, & Hood, 2009; Grayson & Shulman, 2000; Kivy, 1995; Kozinets et al, 2002; Newman & Dhar, 2014; Newman, Diesendruck, & Bloom, 2011; Newman & Bloom, 2012; O’ Guinn, 1991; Smith, Newman, & Dhar, 2016; Wang, 1999).…”