authenticity and likability

a few years ago, my dad read an article in the washington post magazine that prompted a new game on our family vacations: "authentic, or not authentic?" as we traveled up and down the east coast, we would evaluate the places we saw.

sometimes the answer was obvious. the place we judged least authentic over the years was probably a cherokee indian reservation in north carolina. while there were indeed descendants of the tribe living there, on the original land, the culture was lost in a giant tourist trap of cheesey shops and cardboard teepees. it existed only to sell itself.

other locales fell on the opposite end of the spectrum. a favorite family destination is maine. now, as far as i can tell, a good deal of the economy in maine is supported by tourism. however, at least in the areas i've visited, that didn't seem to inhibit the natural culture. tiny white-housed villages abound, and in-home art shows seem to be popular.

in particular, one visit to a little pier fits the bill. after winding along the coast, we reached a gravel parking area walled on one side by grimy lobster traps. the restaurant was a little shack with a window where you could order whole lobster meals or lobster rolls. there were a few picnic benches on the actual pier, where you could see straight down into the water. faded paint, misspelled words on the menu, and a pervasive smell of seafood completed the scene.
here's my question: what made it so obvious that the lobster shack was authentic but the teepees weren't? what were these judgments based on?

some of the criteria for our destinations come to mind. were they real? did they exist regardless of us, as tourists? were they thoroughly immersed in the local culture? did they have a unique atmosphere?

maybe what i'm asking is : what is authenticity?

that might be over my head. i'm thinking too close along the lines robert pirsig - i'm almost finished with zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. he's driven by a search for the true meaning of quality. one of the main points is that you can't actually define quality.

so maybe you can't define authenticity.

so is authenticity important?
is it integral to your enjoyment and appreciation of a place, or a thing, or an experience? i have a pair of dreamcatcher earrings i bought at the reservation, made by a woman of cherokee descent, and i still feel special when i wear them, like i'm actually connected with the native american culture. the pier restaurant, on the other hand, for all its decrepit paint and forlornness, may still have existed for the summer tourists. is one better than the other?

last weekend, i went to a tea bazaar with friends in charlottesville. the friend that suggested the place liked it because of a sort of bohemian, counter-cultural atmosphere of the bazaar. tree trunks, eastern wall hangings, and unusual lighting all add to the effect. our group seemed to have a general appreciation of the unique venue.

my boyfriend, however, disagreed. it seemed too fake, too contrived for him to enjoy. the place was trying so hard to please a certain demographic that it was no longer cool, he said.

so now i'm wondering: does trying too hard prevent something from being authentic? if it does, then can we still like the place, accepting it for the unique, if contrived, atmosphere anyway? or should we only accept that which is authentic?

or maybe trying too hard doesn't prevent the bazaar from being authentic. after all, the workers all had piercings and dyed hair, there was hookah on the menu, and from what i've heard it gets pretty crazy when they have bands play some evenings. that on its own might represent an authentic culture.

what do you think?

photo credit