Authenticity, etc

The important issue here is that the power of cybernetic simulations prompts a redefinition of such fundamental terms as life and reality, just as, for Benjamin, mechanical reproduction alters the very conception of art and the standards by which we know it. Casting the issue in terms of whether existence within the limits of an artificial life-support system should be considered “life” obscures the issue in the same way that asking whether film and photography are “art” does. In each case a presumption is made about a fixed, or ontologically given, nature of life or art, rather than recognizing how that very presumption has been radically overturned.

I agree with this sentiment, and I feel that many times (and not only regarding "New Media") the question of "is it art" is raised with the implication that the question is regarding the definition of "art as we know it". The fact of the matter is that some work doesn't always fit in well with whatever art practice happens to be going on at the moment. I tend to wonder about the utility of questions like "is it art" because I find that those sort of questions are usually an attempt to protect the status quo rather than re-define it. I realize, of course, that there is some real discussion to be had around the topic, but I rarely see it take place, unfortunately. Many of the anecdotes in the articles we read this week were about just that: The inability of many people to recognize machine-assisted assisted artwork as "genuine" (I found this especially interesting in in the context of Photography). Just like the question should be "What is art?" not "How does this fit into what we think of as art?", the question shouldn't be "Is this authentic?" but rather "What is authenticity?"