Authenticity

During class today, discussing authenticity and originality immediately made me consider postmodern architecture as we discussed it in class.  My mind stuck on the form (I am currently off campus without notes) that tries to blend in as if it has always been there.  This new building is made to duplicate past structures in attempt to bring them back aesthetically, but can also be used to remodel a town needing a newer structure to blend in with the old.  In essence, these new postmodern buildings are replications.

What I struggle with is this difference between authenticity and originality.  I understand originality entirely.  Authenticity however, is a struggle.  I have always thought of something authentic as simply something real, perhaps only truly using the term when referring to material goods.  In the case of a design watch or a designer purse, it is clear to understand that authentic is referring to the coveted brand or a "true" object.  Possibly and object truly being what it claims to be.  However, considering other goods, what makes something authentic? As with the tex-mex example, authentic tex-mec would not stray from what we all perceive it to me, although it is not THE original place that started tex-mex.

Now this brings me back to postmodern architecture.  Just because it was not created in the time it wants us to think, is it not authentic.  It may be built out of the same materials, utilize the same trends, and essentially, be the same building only built centuries later.  So is it not authentic?  If before, it made sense that tex-mex could be considered authentic as long as it followed the original guidelines, as long as it was what we perceive tex-mex to be, then is a postmodern structure also authentic if it comes out how it should.

Essentially, I wonder if a recreation be authentic?