This week the readings propose methodologies and explore methodological problems in relationship to the study of material culture. You should respond to the following two articles:
Jules David Prown, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method,” in Material Life in America, 1600-1860, edited by Robert Blair St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 17-37.
Dell Upton, “Form and User: Style, Mode, Fashion, and the Artifact,” in Living in a Material World: Canadian and American Approaches to Material Culture (St. John, Newfoundland: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1991), 156-169.
Prown sets forth a widely used methodology for object study. Upton, on the other hand, confronts some problems in terminology with regard to studies of consumption or use. They are very different articles. Do your best with the Upton, it is the more difficult of the two to understand.
In your responses this week, consider how these articles deal with (or don't deal with) the problems of material culture that we talked about in class last Wednesday. Also consider whether you think the authors' methodological investigations ultimately help the material culturist to shed his/her cultural biases or not.
12 comments:
Jules David Prown, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method”
This essay basically broke down the different aspects of material culture and how it is applied to artifacts. They discuss the importance of the materials in material culture and how they are analyzed. First, the object is inspected in great detail. Then the object is put into context of the time and place it would have been used to try and determine how it affected the lives of the people that used it.
Prown mentions that being aware that we are culturally bias will help put ourselves in the lives of the people we are researching, but I don't see how that's possible. Even if we know we shouldn't be bias, I think one would remain so.
The part I found most interesting was when he mentions the human perception of the universe between earth and sky. As soon as I read this I immediately began thinking of gravity and how I could use it in my art. Later on in the essay, he states "...we accept them as mindlessly as we accept the tug of gravity." I just thought that was interesting.
Dell Upton, “Form and User: Style, Mode, Fashion, and the Artifact”
Upton focuses on the stlye, fashion and mode of artifacts in this essay and how they can change the way we look at objects. He begins with the three different styles that people associate with materials. He then talks aobut modes of artifacts. Modes don't stand out from style much, but they define small differences in certain materials. And finally he discuses fashion. Fashion is dependant on those who are purchasing the materials and those who create the fashionable products.
He also talks about symbols. He writes, "In this sense symbolization is the act of creating and recreating the world." We apply our own ideas of what things are to make them fit into the world we create. So how can we ever "see" these materials the way the original makers and owners did?
Dell Upton in “Form and User” questions if we really understand the relationship between an artifact and user also, the relationship between object and maker. Last, weeks discussion brought up the issue of object verses user. Upton brings up the fact that artifacts have been ignored in a sense, objects need to be studied in their person to object relationship. He feels that using multiple studies that already exist completes these studies.
The first major topic is Style; he uses this as an example to look at this problem further. Style has many meanings in art history, evolutionary definition and popular culture. If we take these three and look at them through the perspective of the consumer and their relationship to the object, we can come to a more full understanding of the object. In contrast to style, he mentions looking at mode. Mode can unify and distinguish. The distinctions are found in the sub categories. Modes are also limiting. Second, Upton discusses symbolism and the fact that is present because of the need of order. Also discussed are ideology and fashion. In summary, we need to look at the thing more closely.
This reading and idea are slightly confusing. I am not sure where Upton is clearly stating the problem of bias. In symbolism and style, it can be problematic but I am still not clear on how. The idea between mode and style made the most sense out of the whole article.
In “Mind in Matter”, Prown sets forth a very detailed formulation for studying material culture. To begin his discussion he looks at assumptions that we make, cultural, or individual and he looks at cultural perception. It seems that the pervading factor in this field is to avoid bias, or personal opinion. This is problematic because we all come from varying experiences and beliefs. How can this be averted? This is the point of theory and hypotheses here. I believe that this is why he chooses to focus on cultural perception and assumptions or what he calls veracity. Prown believes that we can step out from these givens and be objective.
So, the theory is laid out before us. Looking at different variables will allow us to come to a final hypothesis for an object. Prown discusses determinism, looking at external and internal information. Discussed are methodology, description, substantial analysis, content, formal analysis, then we come to deduction. Deduction is the investigator contemplating what it would be like to be the user of this object. Most interesting is the idea of sensory engagement, looking and studying the object through sight, taste, smell, touch, and sight. Prown warns us of the speculative stage. This is where bias often shows up. To delve into this even deeper, he suggests investigation into external evidence. Beginning by looking at art history and archeology, two fields that are familiar with material culture. Through art and archeology, he discusses iconography, and stylistic analysis.
When dealing with art in particular Prown also again warns us about bias in the form of aesthetic dilemma, this dilemma comes from speculation, not analysis. Furthermore, he suggests the advantage of adornment and the most essential feature of for an object being the modification of landscape. In the applied arts section he talks about the aspects of culture that are so fundamental yet so forgotten. One example he uses is salt. We use it everyday without even thinking about it, but if we are without salt, we are aware of it. Devices, he finds to be the most difficult category to deal with. Many tools of the day are studied from the aspect of how they shape the cultural landscape, but the device itself is almost forgotten.
The discussion, taking place here does indeed deal with some of the issues of object verses user, object verses environment and objects verses concepts. It does seem that Prown is very aware that bias can distort this study and he points that speculation and aesthetic dilemma are problematic.
my post is going to be a day late. sorry.
“Mind in Matter: an introduction Material culture theory and method.”
Prown states that Material culture can be divided into six logical categories for study that include Art, diversions, adornment, modifications of the landscape, applied arts and devices. The methods of study do not change between categories.
Material culturists study objects from a structuralist standpoint. Realizing there is a fundamental human need to organize things and create order can aid in the study of objects. By studying the chronological pattern of changes in an object over time we are also studying the changing cultural pattern of a society. The most readily available patterns for study are the intentions of the maker and the observations of the modern perceiver.
Prown describes three stages for the study of material culture. The first step is to simply describe the object. At this point descriptions of style or ware are not important. The broadest of observations are included along with descriptions of any iconography, if applicable. Deduction is the next step. Considering how an object feels, how heavy it is, its comparative size to the viewer or user, and sounds that an object may make is important to understanding the cultural implication of an object. How the object works or its function and possible emotional responses are also investigated at this stage. Speculation, the last step is basically a summery of all the information that can be observed in the object. Any insights brought up by the study should be studied more fully through other investigations and continued study of the object.
Living in a Material World…
And I am a material girl, ya know that we are… nevermind.
Dell Upton
I think that this article primarily dealt with the psychology surrounding artifacts. What makes the style or the mode (didn’t think the word mode worked for what he was trying to describe), and fashion what the are deals with the psychology… and even the sociology of the maker(s), user(s) or society its used or made in. These driving forces determine the popularity, utility, appeal and success of any product (artifact). I also don’t understand fully why he says that architecture has never subjugated to fashion. Surely architecture transformed previous forms into new forms throughout the years. Unless, of course, Upton is looking at architecture in the most basic of ideas.
In the couple of articles I’ve read of Del Upton now, I’m convinced that he is well knowledgeable in the field of material culture, but seems to always be out there proposing new directions of study. It seems that when we open, and rightly so, the field of material culture to suppositions of previous psychology and sociology we again are broadening the field, a field that seems to be stretched thin as it is. It seems necessary to move in these directions, but I wonder how far this field proper can be stretched and still maintain itself as its own source of study rather than an addendum to other fields of study.
Jules David Prown, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method”
Prown looks at material culture as the study of artifacts and their insight into the beliefs,values , ideas of a people group. Prown discusses the disconnect between the term "material culture" and their seemingly contradictory tone. One being abstract and the other being concrete underlining what Prown denotes as a "pervasive metaphor." He later talks about unified field theory and inherent value.
Prown discusses the breakdown of object into categories, the survival rate of objects and how object reflect cultural beliefs. he also talks a lot about the scientific method and the objectivness with which we need to strive to look at material culture.
I found the divide that Prown talks about between the material and spiritual, earth and sky is very interesting. I am interested in sacred place where the heavens meet the earth. It is said of Hagia Sophia and other spiritual places that it is the place where earth touches the sky.
Dell Upton, “Form and User: Style, Mode, Fashion, and the Artifact”
Upton poses the question, Do we understand the relationship of artifact and user as opposed to object and maker? Which relationship is more important? One denotes need and the other denotes function. Upton states that "objects are to communicate some concept of the maker's" and some even see objects as signs that communicate to the receiver. style is then brought up and referred to as mode. I found the part where Upton began speaking about symbol and sign and the sacred and the profane very interesting.
Material Life in America…
Prown
This was an easy but long read. I actually enjoyed it though. This article lays out the process for object analysis and the concerns Material Culturalist’s may have to deal with when analyzing ojects. He begins the article with defining what he thinks “Material Culture” as a study is, the values attached to material, the differences in types of objects and how we should approach them. Later he goes through a sort of scientific process of describing objects all the way through forming hypotheses.
There was a segment that I thought I may possibly misinterpreted or disagreed with. The part where he was discussing the difference between material and artifact. When discussing artifact, he mentions natural objects manipulated by humans but not the objects by themselves. Like a group of ordered trees amongst a natural forest… where man would have planted a section of trees to form rows rather than their natural staggered pattern. Does this mean that even if a rock is moved by a man to get to something else… or the byproduct of a process like say a quarry, then does it now become an “artifact”?
“Form and User”
Is Upton saying that by concentrating on the intention of the maker and considering the maker and user as one and the some that we neglect user/consumer?
Are style, mode, and fashion aspects of objects that the consumer would influence?
I like Upton's Form and User article. Is he canadian? I wish that i was canadian or icelandic, or an eskimo. americans are tacky. our style, even when elite, is faux gold terrible. that's my style- i love fool's gold. i like upton's idea of investigating objects "head- on." he talks about how our maker's culturally derived style sensibility is like a carrot dangling in front of joe buisnessman's spinning bowtie. yeah capitalism! carpe diem! a great deal of the point that he is trying to make comes down to the difference between signs and symbols. in our consumerist environment, is it really relevant to study and document every 50 cent grocery store vending machine plastic alien? it remains a dilemma for leading scholars. once you acquire a surplus of goods, the individual items lose their intrinsic value. another painting at the louvre would be another painting at the louvre. Tony's pizza hooked up dinner tonight- $2.25 for a whole pie.
I fell asleep in the Rhodes library reading the Jules Prown article. He tries to further define material studies. the classification of material studies is different from art history, archeology, cultural geography, and etc. it does, however, lend itself to many of these other fields (excluding psychology.) Magritte's painting of "this is a pipe," comes to mind for whatever strange reason.
his tone towards the end of the article got enthusiastic. he tried to convince the reader that art objects are spiritual. i liked some of his late imagery- like salt. and i liked what he was saying about the attitude of the maker. like, yeah. but overall i think that it is sort of b.s. (which stands for bull shit.) i can like totally express my world view better through images than words. and words are totally like objects also, you know, too. they can be dissected into a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i dont want to get kicked out of class. busy reader, my clothes fit me terribly. look a seagull. hammer rhymes with fluxism. here is some simple talk: i am eager to start investigating some objects.
Trying this again... somehow I managed to not post my blog the other day... I am computer challenged.
Upton Article:
Upton acknowledges many good aspects of thought/theory currently in use in material culture study but he expresses need for the return to traditional ways of study. His focus is on object person relationship, not objects to support abstract notions of past peoples, objects as supporting items to documentation, or substitutes when documents do not exist. From this Upton writes more about makers and users of the objects. By studying the object Upton claims that one could better understand the way in which people "organize and understand the physical world". Upton's proposal for a new way of seeing/studying of material culture brings the object into a material of study not just a way to support study. He is attempting to understand not only the history present within the objects but also the way in which people relate/understand their place within history.
Prown Article:
Prown is attempting to streamline the way material culture is studied. With so many fields using material culture studies it is easy to see that there is many different approaches and definitions. Prown's method breaks down material culture by definition and then by steps to follow when processing data/info. It seemed to me that Prown sets out to make material culture studies accessible to a wide range of people. He also seems to be defending the importance of this type of study. I am not too sure if he believes that artifacts can be solely relied upon for historical understanding of culture. Instead, I feel like he sees artifacts as a supporting tool to better understand beliefs and connection of people both past and present.
Jonathan Postal – Mind In Matter by Jules David Prown
This is really all about methodology. But first…Cultural bias and the Big Idea.
In general the Big Idea that I can catch doesn’t seem all that big.
Near as I can tell it is simply that artifacts rule especially when you can’t find text. It is the artifact and thus by implication the material culturist who champions the unwashed inarticulate and illiterate masses, bringing their story into the once indifferent arms of history.
Once again our friend Henry Glassie throws down with – a small percentage of the world population historical has been literate. It is through the magic of objects that they can speak to us.
Prown is all about cultural bias, in that he feels pretty confident that he can side step it. I get the feeling he thinks about this allot but claiming to be handsome don’t necessarily make you pleasing to the eye.
How can we shuck our own cultural prejustice and filter into an alternative culture.
Prown feels that he is capable of stepping outside of his culture and class and evaluate artifacts in the light of the society that produced them.
I don’t think so Jules; I mean you got cultures out there that eat puppies (some sleep with their mothers and eat the hearts of their enemies). I know I for one would have difficulty stepping into that one.
However he is great for methodology.
We can sort artifacts by function: 1.Art
2.Diversions
3.Adornment
4.Modification Of Landscape
5.Applied Arts
6.Devices
There are the aspects of culture: Veracity
Cultural Perspective
There is Description
Substantial Analysis
Content
Formal Analysis
Deduction
Speculation
.
Speculation being the most dangerous.
He is defiantly looking scientific, he wants to be scientific. Is he, I don’t know?
Jonathan Postal- Form and User, Dell Upton
Dell Upton is looking again at the artifact and wondering if the object has lost its place in the hearts of the Material Culture community.
Upton’s big idea and his methodology seem to be the same.
We want to look more closely at the relationship between to object and it’s maker as well as the user and the artifact. In addition we want to have another look at formalism and see if we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
Analyzing the physical cues through which the consumer understands the world he turns to the three sisters of material consumption Style, Mode and Fashion.
Styles being (for one thing) the residue left after you subtract the practical.
Mode being geared for an elite, though maybe not an elite you would want to be part of.
Fashion growing from an expanded availability of consumer products creating a status conscience middle class.
Post a Comment