This week's readings use the methodological framework of consumption as a way to understand material goods. The writings of T. H. Breen reconsider long-held assumptions about what painting, particularly portrait painting, meant in eighteenth-century colonial America. William Rathje and Cullen Murphy challenge us to look at the leavings, literally the garbage, of a culture or society as a valid form of material culture inquiry.
Please respond to :
T. H. Breen, “The Meaning of ‘Likeness’: Portrait-Painting in an Eighteenth-Century Consumer Society,” in The Portrait in Eighteenth-Century America, edited by Ellen G. Miles (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993), 37-60.
and
William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, Chapters 1 and 3, Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 1-29 and 53-78.
15 comments:
T. H. Breen, “The Meaning of ‘Likeness’: Portrait-Painting in an Eighteenth-Century Consumer Society,” in The Portrait in Eighteenth-Century America, edited by Ellen G. Miles (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993), 37-60.
Breen has taken another look at portrait painting in the eighteenth century and what it meant to Colonial America. “The Bermuda Group”, by Smibert is selected for investigation with some interesting results. Early on, the author makes a speculation alluding to emphasis on fabric. Following speculation, Breen educates us on British Consumerism and it’s immigration to American colonies. With the rise of the middle class so did demand for manufactured goods. There was a conservative population that concerned themselves with the negative effects of consumption on these new levels. The American economy was tied directly to Great Britain by “navigation acts”, preventing the colonies from importing anything not coming through Britain. As colonist made a more comfortable living, they were buying goods in numbers unheard of. Consumerism took off in a big way during this time in history. Breen mentions that America was becoming angelican; through British trade, Americans were essentially becoming English themselves. Along the countryside, peddlers with English product were nearly attacked when arriving with their goods. Through the acquisition of materials, people soon began to see status in the objects they owned, thus driving consumerism even harder. With the advent of this social culture so came the opposers, namely ministers that spoke of luxury the same as sin. Possessing material good for ornamentation and to display status did invoke greed, jealousy, and pride. Among the imports, textiles were indeed in very high demand. Breen stated that fabric is what held this empire together. As the variations in fabric grew, so did the language used to describe the many different types of textiles available. I find it interesting that the Colonies who wanted independence from England, so easily consumed her manufactured products. Even the artists got caught up in the movement. As mentioned earlier, with more money in pockets, consumers were more apt to buy products. One product is the portrait, an artifact that takes the participation of both maker and user. Typically, in this setting the user modifies what the maker is doing, the same held true with portrait painting of the day. Although it might be assumed that the consumer would want to be represented in a most realistic way, that is not true. Most colonists wanted to be represented by objects that surrounded them, most notably the clothing. So, does this make the painting a commodity? Breen took issue with this notion of a paintings being seen as wall furniture. Speculation on how these people felt about these portraits is mostly that because there seems to be little evidence to corroborate what we do know. Breen also called this idea a “ self-fashioning”. The people of the colonies had already done this in their architecture, their china, the fabrics used in churches, and of course in clothing. Three portraits are discussed where the person is in a model dress that is of English origin. One speculation that Breen makes is the idea that the objects or garments represented in the painting were more important than the “likeness” of the person. So from this idea he speculates that the portrait is a symbol of status, therefore making it wall furniture, as furniture represented status. It was even discovered that in folk or primitive pieces, the same concern arises. Objects are more important than the individual.
William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, Chapters 1 and 3, Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 1-29 and 53-78.
“Will never think about my garbage the same way!!!!”
Using garbage to study the possible unknowns of a society is only about as old as archeology itself. The Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island is the scene for an excavation of discards; it is part of the Garbage Project operated out of the University of Arizona. The study was conceived in 1971 and has produced mounds of information about nutrition, habits, and behavior. Garbage is often seen as the tattle-tale of a society, and is often seen as a corrector of information. The author gives examples of garbage archeology such as the military, police and celebrity. The history of the study talks about how it came about and the results found so far. The most insightful part of the discussion dealt with the discarding of red meat during times of shortages. It was found that when red meat was in short supply, people wasted more of it. Nutritionist did not see much credibility in this one finding, however much to the luck of the project a sugar shortage ensued. The project was ready; the findings found that people wasted three times the amount of sugar than when it was plentiful. One effect of the shortage caused people to buy Mexican grade sugar that was not the same quality found in the states. It wasn’t too long before blocks of sugar appeared in garbage. Of all the various findings discussed here, this was the most interesting and I believe one point that was proved without a doubt, and can have such an effect on the way we look at our behavior of discard.
Material Culture and the process of studying artifacts is one key component to this study.
We can look at the objects we discard, however unpleasant it may be and learn more about ourselves and the world around us. Through looking at a group of material in a certain context, bias is not only almost wiped away, but we find that people tell a lot more about themselves that they might otherwise admit. This was found in a study done on self-reporting. Not only was garbage collected but also the individuals were interviewed about how much waste they believe was generated within one week. In almost every case, it was found that more waste was generated than was recorded. With the food shortage findings, the term “crisis buying” was termed. People would buy more products, but product they did not know how to store or prepare so it would go to waste. From that the “First Principle” idea came to light. The principle stated that the more regular your diet, the more often you ate the same thing every day, less waste was generated. Of course, this did not sit well with the nutritionist because they encouraged eating many types of food rather than just a select few. Garbageology is definitely a valid material culture study. Out of my short experience so far with Material Culture Studies, the Garbage Project is no doubt one of the most important collaborations taking place to uncover knowledge about the behavior of our complex society.
T. H. Breen, “The Meaning of ‘Likeness’: Portrait-Painting in an Eighteenth-Century Consumer Society”
This essay focused on the foundation of taste and social status in eighteenth-century America. The role of portrait painters during this time period was also discussed. Breen writes that wives and women played a major role in the consumption of imported goods. These women were introduced to new English imports by neighbors, merchants and newspaper ads. They associated these materials with style, fashion and social status.
Portrait paintings also fell into the catagory of material goods.
When a portrait was made, the sitter had the artist paint them with trendy "English" clothes, giving the appearance of good taste. Painters were not viewed as creators of fine art, but as designers of material goods.
This raised the point that cameras allowed American painters to create works of art beynd portraiture.
William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, Chapters 1 and 3, Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage
I found these two chapters extremely interesting. After reading them I wanted to go dig through my neighbors trash and see what they have been throwing out. It seems like this type of research could be more fruitful than Prowns method, simply because of the fact that most of the garbage was easily recognizable. The part I found most interesting was when they discussed trash as an abandoned material and that it was up for grabs. This reminded me of the time I found a slightly damaged tennis racket in my neighbors trash when I was a kid. They thought it was junk, but I salvaged it and used it for about five years.
I started thinking of these materials as having different values for different types of people. What causes one person to think something is trash when someone else sees it as a perefectly functional object? Does it go beyond affluence or is it simply a matter of creativity?
rubbish.
i will try to keep this short and sweet since everyone has already done the reading (don't peek). today i went out to the cooper-young church that does recycling to do my recycling. that is usually one of of my sunday activities. call me spiritual. or a beer drinker. actually, don't call me anything. memphis does have curbside recycling, but it goes into the same truck that picks up the garbage. so i go to church. tonight i am drinking foster's beer. i like the australian marketing campaign: 24 ounces for under two bucks. as a broke grad dude i am critical about that stuff. i dont care about keeping up with the jonses. i believe in beer and recycling. that being said, i don't know what to say. i used to be a vegetarian. now i try not to eat gas station hot dogs.
Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage
This article was interesting to read and made me glad to be a vegetarian! It also had me reevaluating my own household’s habits and waste management.
“If our garbage, in the eyes of the future, is destined to hold a key to the past, then surly it already holds a key to the present”, this quote from Rubbish! can sum up what the article is about… not only should we study humans and their discarded histories for insight into the way people once lived, we can use these similar methods to discover habits of today’s people. I feel that the article is an eye opener to the wasteful habits that people have grown to use and as it is pointed out, the habits that are possibly too ugly to even acknowledge or identify. It was great to read about practical implements of the fieldwork from excavation sites such as Fresh Kills landfill and the study made by the enlisted military men from the 40’s. For me it gave the area of material study more clout because it can lead to great changes in our current day in age. The study of material in these cases supports the need for acknowledgement of our laziness and a need for change. If through research one could prove the harm people are inflicting on themselves and their surroundings, one could also push for improvement in the way people live. Lofty hopes maybe, but it seems that this may be one way to backup reasons for change. Beyond the lofty notions that I extracted from the article, I found the individual case studies and the correlation to the general consensus to be enthralling…. mostly with the correlation to shortage and waste as well as social changes and the byproducts that came as a result.
The Meaning of “Likeness”:
Portrait Painting in an Eighteenth Century Consumer Society
Ahh, we found consumerism… and the middle class was born.
Consumption of goods and the need for societal advancement places the portrait painter within the role of a merchant, offering up some proof that the women subjects are of the privileged. English goods became fashionable and to the people living in America, these consumer goods equated social stature. The article by Breen takes the reader through varying facets of life during the time of the eighteenth century, pointing out both the demand for such elaborate goods and the resistance made by others in the community. The portrait painter is made out to be another merchant type, taking advantage of the new demand for material goods. By offering yet another item for purchase the people of the day could display their acquired possessions in an all-inclusive snapshot of their projected image. The purpose of the portraits discussed was the attire/status symbols and not on the true portrayal of the person themselves. This idea ultimately placed the painter in a designer position more than a position of fine artist.
the meaning of likeness
my print out of this article cut off the left and right margins; my opinion regarding this article may be skewed. the article is cropped poorly. i have lots of respect for people that paint pet portraits. Especially if the paintings are put together well. its a bonus if the poodle has a smile and a floppy tongue.
that image is classic. it makes me want to have sex with a goat. i like the way that uncommisioned painters paint people. who cares about likeness. why create icons? aren't we passed that. WW2... I saw the music video of Michael and Janet Jackson's song "Scream." This has to be the most iconic music video on the market. The video is in black and white. Michael looks like mickey mouse. janet cannot keep her shirt on. it kicks ass. one night in undergrad at colorado college i snorted a line of what was that eighties drug and took a sugar cube hit of lsd. long story short, i passed out and woke up in the morning tripping my face off.
thats a joke. but i am wondering what to do with that article past noticing the obvious. yes, portrait paintings are consumer objects.
T. H. Breen, “The Meaning of ‘Likeness’: Portrait-Painting in an Eighteenth-Century Consumer Society,” in The Portrait in Eighteenth-Century America, edited by Ellen G. Miles (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993), 37-60.
The article by Breen was interesting focusing upon the cultural and societal impact of material culture in eighteenth century portraits. The portraits served themselves functioned as objects (i.e. bourgeois paintings for bourgeois people). One interesting concept or notion Breen touched upon was the idea of self-fashioning. Breen stated it was found within the paintings beginning with the artist in the example. But what is the meaning of self-fashioning and why is it important. Breen went on to suggest the importance not of the actual realistic rendering of the people but rather the clothing. With rise of the middle class it was important for the bourgeois class to set themselves apart from the lower and middle class. The middle class often consumed much of the same type of goods but less in reference to quantity. The bourgeois found their “visual identity through cloth.” The portrait paintings functioned both as object and cultural commentary. The article was very interesting how Breen tied together the historical setting and the rise of consumption and the middle class. I had not thought about the extreme importance that was placed on how one looked and how it seemed more important according to Breen, how one looked (i.e. how one was dressed) rather than what one looked like (actual likeness).
William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, Chapters 1 and 3, Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 1-29 and 53-78.
The sheer idea of a place or a location as big or rather 25 times the size of the Great Pyramid at Giza is pretty insurmountable. Almost the mass of the Great Wall of China, which can be seen from outer space, Fresh Kills is the site of our exploration into Rubbish! I found the use of an auger or derrick interesting comparable to that of drilling for core samples in the arctic or mining. I liked how it was stated that one needed thick gloves a mask and booster shots to study garbage. The tone of the reading was comparable to that of historical analysis and study. Unearthing the past and present and sometimes unfortunate slime led to what can be considered real archeology. I found it interesting how they were not interested in individuals but rather in trends and patterns of the whole. It was also was intrigued by the idea of the study of garbage being relatively open and through organization of items future hypothesis were possible. Although garbage has been studied for some time there is still room for interpretation. I also liked how the study of garbage can bring to light information that has previously been overlooked or wrongly reported, such as the study of garbage can give greater insight into larger trends into the consumption habits of an area or population.
Angie Evans
The meaning of “likeness”
Portrait Painting in an Eighteenth-century Consumer Society
Breen begins this article by introducing John Smibert as “one of the first professionally trained portrait painter to take up residence in colonial America” and states that the locals referred to him as a “designer.” The article makes the point that early Americans wanted to be represented with the finest of cloth and were impresses by any person who could afford lavish clothing. My assumption about early Americans is that they where puritan, plain and not materialistic. Now I think that colonial Americans could have been more like the people I went to high school with than I thought. I believe the biggest difference between American and English painting of the time is the fact that America in is early years had mostly self taught or untrained artists.
Rubbish! The Archeology of Garbage
This article shows that rubbish or the things we have used and throw out really can tell us things about ourselves that we didn’t know or didn’t want to know. It also marks the change in the 1970’s, when we started thinking differently about objects as a way to study ourselves.
The meaning of likeness…
The article, to be honest was pretty dry. It begins with the discussion of an artist (portrait artist) whom people referred to as a designer, which then gets us on a roll to set up the article. Why would people have referred to this “artist” as a “designer”? Of course the author doesn’t touch on the artist again until the last two pages of the article (which was frustrating). In the middle of the article he discusses how several artists had to open up shops to also sell goods, along with their services. We looked at the service of the portrait painter, and where his place was in terms of high art or a producer of a commodity or “wall furniture” as they stated in the article. The part I thought was the funniest was the stereotypical image of a couple wives speaking and wanting to keep up or outdo the other in terms of keeping up with the latest fashion (reference B. Franklins wife buying the new china and silver spoon). Be it 1760 or 1950, the same image pops up in my mind. Of course, in our contemporary American culture today, men and women are much to savvy to fall for this anymore (even as I speak, my wife checks out her newly purchased razor cell phone… the old phone sits next to me, still perfectly functional).
I didn’t think the article cared much about the artist being a merchant as was posted earlier, but more about the artist as a serviceman. The excerpt where the man discusses how the portrait of his friend captured his likeness and elements of his personality, never was there mention of who the artist was. They didn’t care who the artist was, for the most part). As long as the artist could deliver a LIKENESS and paint them in the most contemporary English fashions, the artist would get the job. Who the artist was, wasn’t of much concern. It’s like, would you rather have a George Nakashima table or an Ikea table. Who cares if the Nakashima is high quality art, as long as the Ikea is what’s in vogue, “I’ll buy it.” The artist was more of a ways to a means of making individuals feel important and in style, as I’m sure they didn’t want to look like a bunch of rustic simpletons in this new colony where they were so far away from “contemporary” society. Having your portrait done with the finest, fastest ship made in the background was a big hit with the boys. It made you the big man on the quadrangle.
Rubbish!
I found this article to be very interesting because I used to read about the crap that was taken from peoples trash to determine facts about them in some book I read about ten years ago. It covered serial killers who like the BTK guy who would stalk his victims for months before killing them. He would rummage through their trash and learn about the. It talked about celebrities who would have paparazzi look through their trash to get the next big scoop. It even discussed how during the cold war the U.S. embassies in Europe would purposely lay out decoy trash for the Soviets to rummage through so they would get false information while the real trash was taken to another country and incinerated.
This project may glean important information about our culture today, but I wonder, how aware are you about larger social issues in trash in a society when you are living in that society as it is. Some things are better looked at in the totality from years later when we can get a broader empirical perspective of our society. Such as looking back at the 1950’s, we have not only history, but graphs and charts and a catalogue of items and experiences to reference the findings. Patterns that may not have been present to the people living in the 1950’s. Then again the problem with looking back, too far from the point of origin (in terms of time) we run into the problem of calling a toilet seat a “Sacred Collar” or whatever.
The article discussed the history of the project, from its inception to its development into, current studies (at the time it was written). I particularly enjoyed reading about how they got hit with slime from some 60 years ago. I may have lost my lunch at that moment of having liquefied product, food and miscellaneous human secretions splatter me in the face while at work. Not so much, for me. Someone should contact that guy who does the discovery channels “dirty jobs” and ask him to go here, sounds like fun. Sounds like loads of fun for a cultural anthropologist, but where do these findings get logged?
ok, round two. sorry about the projectile vomit writing concerning the likeness portrait painting. i meant to delete my culturally biased assertions. that eighties drug was a quaalude. the fiction element of that experience is irrelevant. i printed out a horizontally aligned document of the reading and my understanding of the text is now expanded. there are many ways that we learn to read. visual reading often takes many takes. i am still grappling with the overarching point of this text. i definitely do not want to work with any sort of art object for the focus of my paper. i am from the camp that gives intellectual freedom to the creative mind of the artist. call it cliche. i also think that scienticts have earned scientific freedom, and historian's have earned historical freedom. That is the part and parcel of specialized education. And yes, sure, cross disciplinary intersections emerge and are relevant. Materially, however, what is fruitful ground for exploration? To me the "goods" of a painting has little to do with the likeness of neither a face nor a garment. i apologize for my self-conscious self-absorbed rant. this is what i represent.
Jonathan Postal
William Rathje and Cullen Murphy, Chapters 1 and 3, Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage
My old acquaintance A.J. Weberman does put in an appearance in academia. He would have loved that. They left out his most fulfilling moment, which was when Dylan came down stairs and beat the living shit out of him. (Weberman was about 6’2” to Dylan’s 5”3”.) Weberman was a clown and it doesn’t take much in the way of scientific material culture detective work to reach this assumption. Going through a man’s garbage to determine which way the wind was blowing for the weatherman. Clearly in his own way he was just making his living, getting by.
Aside from the police detectives (though I had hoped for a more noble expose of evil than busting someone for drugs – maybe at least a serial killer) I have a hard time buying my need for material garbage men (or garbage persons as these people are sure to be politically correct).
But I understand. It’s hard to find a job these days. If letting me know that people buy unusual cuts of meat during a beef scare or lie about how much beer they drink keeps beer and beef on the table than I say go for it.
Not that it is not interesting how much garbage, rubbish and trash respectively we can produce you have to ask how interesting is it really? Is worth more than the kind of information you get from one of these books people put by their toilets. Is this a noble life’s work.
I’d have to say most of the information they came up with is either self-evident or have dubious import. Poor people don’t own their houses they own their cars.
Hispanics make lots of stuff out of tacos and cheese.
Drunken people break beer bottles and toss condoms after use out of their cars.
Thanks for the breakthrough; I’m sure glad you guys weren’t wasting your minds on trivial things like curing cancer or relief from fossil fuels.
At least Weberman was an honest clown.
Jonathan Postal
T. H. Breen, “The Meaning of ‘Likeness’: Portrait-Painting in an Eighteenth-Century Consumer Society,”
Wall furniture. I like this idea. I myself am involved in the production and sales of such items.
The people who could afford these artifacts had no problem making clear what was expected of the artist. The elements that defined the essence of the sitter was not physical likeness but fabric and style.
Mass consumption had established a bulkhead that it has yet to relinquish either in Brittan or these colonies in which we presently dwell.
It set the president for the anglophiles we aspire to be. The credit culture that we are caught in like fly’s in honey was established before we ever had a chance. The ability to be shallow and ignorant was always just held back by the ability to manufacture enough meaningless trinkets and the rising middle classes ability to get credit to buy into the idiotsy. That the ruling class of Brittan was a flock of inbred morons worried about their china was never in doubt. It just shows why the amount of time we will spend as the primary species on this rock will deservedly be dwarfed by the dinosaur and cockroach.
These reading are starting to make me feel sad.
Post a Comment