The concept of legitimacy is a difficult one as to a great extent it is dependent on who is discussing the issue and what they decide legitimacy is. Please note that in my reply to Alan’s question I will only address the idea in relation to objects.
We have a number of layers to consider when we are looking at objects.
In some circumstances legitimacy of an object is conferred by the object being definitively signed by the maker, as in some art works. We can read the signature, accept that the object is made by a specific creator and have a concept of why it was created. Whether we actually understand why it was created may be debateable.
Of course there are those who would take advantage of that by producing objects ostensibly but not actually signed by the maker eg fake paintings by Vermeer, (see for instance
http://www.essentialvermeer.com/misc/van_meegeren.html). When faced with this problem we turn to ‘experts’, that is to say those who have devoted time, energy and money to developing insight into a particular group of objects.
In this (the fake signature) and other circumstances we the public accept that certain people have developed sufficient expertise to differentiate one object from another by some other relatively concrete means even if we cannot do it ourselves. Perhaps they can read symbols in another language, for instance Japanese seals or they are able to interpret various makers marks for instance the silver and gold assay marks typical of English precious metal objects or perhaps they have just looked closely at the brush style of Vermeer. The problem here is that experts may be mistaken and if the mistake is not corrected it becomes ‘truth’ in the public domain. I have successfully discussed mis-attributions of art works in the British Museum and the Rijksmuseum with their curators. The curators are vastly more expert than the amateur but they still make mistakes.
Then we move into the area of non-marked or non-specifically marked objects. Here legitimacy is conferred in a number of ways (importantly we are no longer just talking about attributing an object to a specific maker).
1. Those who create the object determine that the object is legitimate for their purpose. The purpose may be singular or multifaceted ie it may have a specific function (carrying water) or it may have many (it carries water to the ceremonial place in order that the rains will arrive to ensure crops thrive) and it may change over time (it becomes part of the legitimate regalia of the ruler). An object may serve as a token for another object and still be regarded as legitimate (noting the paper keris may be a legitimate token for a metal one in one circumstance eg at a wedding but not in another circumstance eg trying to cut a throat in a dark alley). The creation group determines legitimacy.
2. Those who create the object do so for a purpose other than their own needs, but recognise it fulfils a need outside of their own group and provides the second group with a desirable object. The creation group do not necessarily benefit directly from the object but do benefit from the trade purpose of the object. The creation group may use a generic mark to show that it is legitimate eg by marking it ‘Toledo steel’ or ‘Made in Japan’. They may simply create a facsimile of an object they use themselves but in a manner that they would not chose to use, eg a plastic replica of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Most facsimile/souvenir items would fall into this group. The creation group creates an object that an external group accepts is a legitimate product of the creation group and the external group does not try and change the objects purpose.
3. Those who fetishize the object (for example the monk with the holy relic or the collectors with the only examples of a particular plastic object that is green) decide that this object is a legitimate example of the desired object. Desired is the key word. They may create a status ranking for objects based on ‘desirable features’ such as size, rarity, % content of elephant dung or even that most deceptive of beasts ‘provenance’. Their concept of legitimacy is often at odds with that of the originators’ of the objects concept. For example the original manufacturer of the green plastic object may have found that it was an unpopular colour and hence dropped it from the product line very quickly. It only becomes rare because of its unpopularity with the original audience but the later audience will fetishize it because of its rarity or because green has become fashionable. I say ‘fetishize’ because this group are generally providing another purpose for the original object to that of its original intent. (I would argue that this group also frequently fetishize signed and marked objects because they appreciate, use and rank them in manners not necessarily intended by their original makers and consumers). The fetishizing group determines that an object has a legitimate purpose independent of that of the creation group.
You will note that the definition of legitimate is a somewhat slippery one and changes over the course of this post. I am confident there are many holes and overlaps in the suggestions I have made, but having spent an hour or so on them I am comfortable with them being a starting point for one particular view. The key message is that the needs of the creation group are different to the needs of the fetishizing group and hence the determination of legitimacy lies with the group discussing the object.
Legitimizing an object is a long way from understanding an object.
DrD