Course Description and Outcomes:
Simply put, the study of material culture is the study of “things”—human-made or human-modified products. These “things” can include clothing, your grandmother’s heirloom jewelry, a formally landscaped garden, a painting, or the contents of a trash can. The study of material culture is based on the belief that human-made objects can be “read” in much the same way that we read written texts. Scholars of material culture read cultural products as a way to uncover the beliefs, values, attitudes, needs, hopes and fears of a particular society at a particular moment.
However, the study of objects alone is not enough. Material culture scholars must study contexts as well as objects, for it is only by considering the historical, social, spatial, and cultural contexts that we can come to a fuller understanding of the meaning expressed by the human-made/modified product itself.
In addition, the field of material culture studies is filled with challenges and debates. Scholars sometimes argue that objects “speak” to us about the past. What does this mean? How can we know for sure what the artifact(s) is “saying” to us? What are the limitations of using objects as evidence? Is it possible to overstate an object’s value as evidence? Is it possible to overstrain an interpretation? Such questions are endemic to the field and are important to our investigations this semester.
This course introduces students to the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary field of material culture studies through readings, discussion, and research in an array of fields including art history, anthropology, folklore, and history. It is important to recognize that our readings will NOT deal primarily with contemporary art. Rather, this seminar is designed to help you develop critical skills of object analysis and will encourage you to consider the relationships between human –made/modified products and cultural meaning. Finally, through your research projects and presentations we will interrogate the ways material culture methodology is/may be used by practicing artists.
Responses for Wednesday, February 27
This week you are reading about material culture and gentility, class, and refinement. Respond to any of the readings that you wish. Remember, don't get bogged down in the details.
8 comments:
Material Life in America, 1600-1860
This article focuses on the arrival of consumer products to America and the way in which the newly thriving consumer society was affected. Here tea, coffee, and chocolate not only show the advancements in trade; they become products that identify peoples’ place in society and as Americans.
Tea became the binding product amongst the Americans. It broke down cultural differences, created new cultural habits, and added to an American way of life. It became the means to cultivate relationship, set the stage for social interaction, and later became the catalyst for political change. Although there were traditions passed along by the English, the colonies began to adapt and create new customs regardless of origin. The documentation of personal accounts of travelers supports an American way of life that surrounded itself in a ritual of teatime. Tea became the connector between different backgrounds and made a new American identity.
Products can create a sense of belonging and identity. The way one consumes and flaunts their consumer goods places them in certain position within society. Like tea culture of the 1800s, today we can see the new push to purchase “green” products acts to create a social awareness. The result is a marketing trend to accommodate the new way thought, furthering a lasting impact on daily life.
Ambitious Appetites,
I think its funny that in the beginning of the framing of these social etiquette guidelines the primary tool to get you to just to blend in is the threat of embarrassment. It speaks to how so much of the world functions in the broader sense. The nail that sticks out is the nail that gets hammered. What happened to being the hammer (or can we still be that in our softer, gentler society)? The Duke would be pissed!
I know we’re talking about dinner tools, but it just reminds me of an argument I got into with my parent–in-laws and wife. They thought it was soooooo rude of me to put my elbows on the table, and to eat with my mouth open (haha, yes its true, I do most of the time), among other things. I told them I have so many rules to follow all day long. I get up and drive to school following the rules of the road. My dress, even should be socially acceptable, less I make a negative impact on a potential buyer, professor, peers… whatever. We have limits, mostly, on our dress and appearance, no matter how “non-traditional” we may view ourselves and our clothing. You would certainly stare at someone walking down the street who is dressed as some South American Native dressed in loin cloth and sandals. I have the rules of the school I must follow. I have the rules of ordering lunch… stand in an orderly line, wait your turn, don’t pass gas in a crowded room. In an elevator, stand facing the doors, less we stand facing the rear of the elevator, people would take us for a loony person. I have the rules of the government, even if I don’t like them. Interpersonal rules of engagement, such as when someone says something I may find upsetting (lets say they lose their composure… lets say, in the grad center, and make me angry, because they are pissy and want to lash out at the next person they see), for me to find the self control not to lower myself to their level and present myself as someone who has no discipline over my outward emotions, that is a social rule, less you become a huge asshole. Ok.. enough. You get the point. I follow all these rules, all day, every day, in every aspect of my life. DON’T, FRIGGIN TELL ME HOW TO EAT AT MY OWN TABLE! I can enjoy a very few things in my daily mundane existence and EATING is one of them. Let me eat my ice-cream with a damn knife if I want, and keep your opinions to yourself. Is ranting breaking the “rules” of this blog? Just wondering.
Necessity is the mother of invention, but what is the mother of necessity? The change in social perception of dining changed the way people ate, and how the dining utensils morphed over the years. With innovation after innovation to improve upon the way we shoveled food into our mouths, the middle class could now sit down and not make the upper-class throw up, a little… in their mouths, at dinner. This, again, like the article last week, was a way for Ben Franklin to appear more civilized in public or when entertaining diner guests. So, how condescending is it for us to visit foreign countries and insist upon our bourgeoisie dining utensils when they use chop sticks, or even in the middle east where they lay down at the table and eat with their hands. How condescending was it for the English to make Americans feel guilty about eating with knives.
It can be transferred to most areas in life. Look at the preferred form of attire for dignitaries and government leaders around the world today. The suit and tie has taken over. Even the stylish, metal clad uniform of the dictator vanishes when he addresses the world. Look at President/General Musharaff of Pakistan for example. Those dictators who want to give their big F*** You to the western world keep that uniform on, such as Kim Jong-il or even Pinochet. But my favorite of all is the members only-esque casual, but kinda creepy attire of the poor, socially inept, “elected” ruler of Iran, Mamoud Ahmadinejad… that silly guy.
Did other people have problems printing out a few of the articles? The Refinement of America Bodies and Minds chapter ends with "Gentility hid what it could not countenance and denied whatever caused discomfort. That deficiency in candor and courage, however commendable the impulse behind it, was the flaw at the core of gentility, the reason why it proved at last to be weak and superficial."
here is a really kick ass video:
http://www.tinkin.com/washugly.html
copy and paste it and check it out. it is highly refined and raw.
As Michael pointed out, gentility is still a major aspect of our culture. It has proven to be neither weak nor superficial. Gentility has had considerable longevity and continues to hold the torch of authority. The gentile believes in dogmas similar to "cleanliness is godliness."
But, there is no such thing as a gentile, only gentility. and like it or not we all got it. except maybe postal. he puts his boots up on the table during class. which is awesome by the way. how was the wedding? did you read our vows?
Conversation is a key indicator of gentility. just like how a communist is identified by wearing red.
morrison snuck his way into this article (that derelict!). come on. this winterthur circle really needs to branch out and not be so self referential. the assertion of critique is a proclaimed indicator of gentility. my dog had taste. he definitely did not eat carrots. back when he was a stray he may have. but i don't know. his records were substantially less complete than Alexander Hamilton's. but i can imagine if he was attacking trash cans as a stray he would still ravage the steak first. i guess that makes him a gentile. i bought two boxes of veggie burgers tonight at shnucks. a new "organic" brand. they were cheaper than morningstar or boca. i had one for dinner and it tasted good.
Bushman discusses gentility in Material Culture. I feel like he is getting at what we see in the portrait paintings. Gentility is also a contradiction of American Ideals. First and foremost, this article is like reading on self-fashioning. Although the government ideology was that of a democratic society and a federation, Americans focused on status and materials, through the introduction of gentility. I translate this into etiquette, the well-known notion of manners and control of one’s body. The reason I see gentility as self-fashioning is because the portrait paintings are mentioned. Particularly the clothing, fine cotton and silks for the rich and course cotton and linen for the poor. Yes, this is definitely a democratic society, it distinguished class by quality of clothing and the fine materials they owned, but the only way this was possible was by the hard work and labor of the poor who wore the course cotton and linen. I question the notion of a democratic nation period. What is democratic in demonstrating class by quality of clothing, control of the body, quality of handwriting and eating utensils? Bushman hits on a huge contradiction between the ideal of the American dream and labors that were needed for this consumption to happen.
This could be way off point but, if you see different please let me know.
The Refinement of America
Richard L. Bushman Chapter Three
Bushman’s article focuses upon the notion of gentility and its expansive reach into society and culture. The intro was insightful giving a bases from which to go. It gave credence to Bushman’s argument. Etymology seemed to play a big part in the article words such as gentile, genteel, course and coarse. The article played upon these words and their affect upon a number of different areas in society, among individuals and society at large. Bushman makes nice transitions between individual practice and affect upon society at large. It made me think of how much these ideas and practices are still a part of our present culture. the uprightness and correct forms of fashion invade our sense through all forms of the media. What does it mean to be correct or proper? Why is it important? Why don’t we shop for clothes at Walmart?
“To achive artistic control of one’s physical being…” what does this sentence mean? Why is it important to use the phrase “artistic control?” Does anything less suggest that we are slovenly? This article referenced the invasiveness of gentility in our present culture and society. It is insidious in how it leached into our mindset and affect choices we make everyday.
Angie
Ambitious Appetites
Customs Manners: Rank and Fashion at Mealtimes
Barbara Carson’s’ article gives a view of the evolution of dining habits in America. In the eighteenth century the people in out nations capital where involved in the slow transition in western culture from knife eating to fork eating.
At the end of the article, Carson asks, “For instance, can the presence of those some forks be associated with consumers relative lack of interest in table linens, especially napkins, at a time when textile production was increasing exponentially?” Napkins could be thought of as kind of a messy eye sore.
Whitewashing America, Material Culture and Race in the Antebellum Imagination
The first chapter of this book discusses how white colored goods attempted to separate race and class in Antebellum America. Fine china, the color of houses, and grave stones were the focus of the materials studied. All of these items were white and considered to be proper and civilized. Items that where colored or made with cheap materials were associated with the lower class. In Antebellum America, African Americans typically used the cheaper goods and Caucasians were the one's with white materials.
This was an interesting read and it made me think of all the products that are made today that are targeted toward specific groups of people. I don't think materials today are as racially charged as they were in the past, but I think there are probably subliminal messages in advertisements that subconciously make us think people who use certain products are of a lower class.
Jonathan Postal
On The Refinement Of America
Richard L. Bushman in the introduction to his book on the refinement of America
writes about the introduction of the concept of genteel society in America and how that influenced the economy and social structure.
I found this very interesting.
It seems like an odd choice to begin with for lets say a farmer to decide to become a gentleman.
I believe it happened, as it is evident that the development of the middle and upper middle class fueled this metamorphous. And we do indeed live in a state of accumulating possessions and marks of status even now.
I wanted to hear more of his ideas on why the lower classes were not more alienated by this drift of culture.
It would just seem to me that there is something about the libertarian aspect of American culture that would resist this attitude more.
I mean I know we like stuff and are an ambitious culture, however I always likes to think we had a healthy disrespect for fops and gentlemen per se.
It seems we could have just gotten the forks and left the rest alone.
Post a Comment