RASI 2011

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Deborah Scott

unread,
Aug 11, 2011, 10:48:13 AM8/11/11
to reading-art...@googlegroups.com, dpant...@technomuses.ca
Hello David and fellow RASI participants,


I’ve been enjoying the readings and comments that have been shared with
this year's RASI group, and am intrigued by the insights they provide
into the study of material culture in the academy and the museum.


While it’s tempting to comment on more than one reading (!), I’ll limit
myself to the article by Jules David Prown, The Truth of Material
Culture: History or Fiction. In particular I am curious about his
statement “…the deep structural meanings of artifacts can be sprung
loose by going beyond cataloguing them as historical facts to analyzing
them as fictions, specifically artistic fictions”.


Based on my work with collections, it appears that museums have tended
to focus on the factual documentation of objects, as in the excellent
example of an in-depth physical description and analysis of a pewter
teapot found in Prown’s article.


As many of the RASI readings demonstrate, looking beyond the historical
facts associated with an artifact is essential to developing a rich and
layered understanding of the object and the culture that produced and
used it. This approach also seems to be more effective in terms of
engaging the public’s interest in museum objects by helping “bring them
to life” (an important consideration as museums strive to increase the
relevance of their collections, and physical and intellectual access to
them).


Prown moves beyond the factual approach by exploring responses to
objects based on textual and structural metaphors, in the process
interpreting the culture that produced them in affective, subjective
ways.


While this approach captures the imagination and offers insights into
objects in ways that would not otherwise be possible, I found myself
wondering: Where is the line between the analysis of objects as
historical fact, including the cultural and political forces that
influenced and shaped them, and the analysis of objects as “specifically
artistic fictions”? Are both approaches / results equally valid from a
research point of view? Is one approach more suited to particular kinds
of objects or disciplines than the other (for example, history versus
folklore)? Is there a middle ground between them?


With respect to my own interests and needs, I find that my students -
many of them recent university graduates - are able to undertake solid
historical research related to artifacts but struggle to
connect,integrate and interpret the results in ways that provide maximum
insights into an object's meaning and significance. For that reason, I
would be very interested in learning, in a practical sense, more about
the steps and requirements involved in this process.


Looking forward to meeting and working with you all next week!


Deb Scott

>>> David Pantalony <dpant...@technomuses.ca> 08/09/11 11:47 AM >>>


Dear Colleagues,

Cindy Stelmackowich will be leading a discussion on Tuesday Aug. 16th
focusing on anatomical books as artifacts. Her research in this area, in

particular the role of touch in using anatomical books, has inspired
some
important conceptual breakthroughs for our upcoming exhibit on the
senses in
medicine.

In addition to Cindy's previously posted suggestions, I also wanted to
point
you to David Pearson's *Books as History* (2nd edition 2011). It is a
quick
and accessible account of the value of books as objects beyond their
textual
information. Books are such a familiar, taken for granted technology
that
work in this area provides a fresh guide for exploring artifact themes
independent of their official function. Pearson asks “can a book be a
book
without words” while exploring historical dimensions of design,
materials,
artisan construction, mass production, variety, ownership, markings and
books as part of collectives. It is not a sentimental connoisseur’s
account
of books in the digital era, but rather a clear account of their value
as
objects independent ofbibliography is nicely organized into themes and references key works in
the
large and growing literature on Book History. I am increasingly using
“book
as artifact research” in conjunction with work in our collection.


On the first morning of RASI, Dag Spicer of the Computer Museum will be
introducing us to another very familiar technology, computers as
artifacts.
I am hoping that the juxtaposition of Dag and Cindy’s sessions, will
serve
as testing ground/inspiration for going beyond predictable narratives
for
artifacts of all kinds.

Finally, I have added a few PDF articles from Dag to Google DOCS:

1. *Do Artifacts Have Politics?*, [from Winner, L. (1986). *The whale
and
the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology. *Chicago,

University of Chicago Press, pp. 19-39

2. *Do Politics Have Artifacts?, *Bernward Joerges,* *Social Studies of
Science, June 1999, vol 29, pp. 411-431.

3. *The SAGE/BOMARC Defense System*, IBM, 1958

David


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages