If we wish to fully understand the past we can not rely on archival information and data because it provides only one half of the story. Objects or “things” are integral parts of our lives and those of the past. These items assist individuals in our daily activities and help us to cement our understanding of ourselves [1]. To understand material culture can assist in our understand of past class distinctions, international communication, and more. Unfortunately, for many of us embracing material context can be difficult, not only because of our reliance in archival and text information, but because of the ways in which we must understand and interpret these objects. Tom Ingold in his article Materials Against Materiality, reflects on the fact that many scholars can not define materiality, or how materials and their properties and components are important.[2] The readings assigned this week give some insight into the ways we must look and understand the objects we wish to research.
To understand how an object was used we must rely on its historical context to understand the state of the society in which it was created. As Ulrich discussed in her article on furniture, to understand the nature of the historical trends of furniture design one must understand the societal factors in play. Ulrich uses the lens of gender and fashion to understand why those of the past created objects. As she argues the trends in fashion, which were entirely dictated by gender differentiations and wealth, can reflect the trends and history of furniture creation during the 18th and 19th centuries.[3] By using these lenses to understand furniture, Ulrich is also able to provide and understanding of the past through the use of these objects. Without an understanding of the historical contexts that are in play during the creation of an object, one can not fully understand the intent and importance of that object. For instance, a bowl may just seem like a vessel for containing liquids or foods, but by understanding the history and culture in which it was made we can understand the this particular bowl was used only by those of the upper classes. These connection can then draw us closer to understanding the past. As we have discussed in class, to understand history we need to understand the objects in play at that time, and from these readings it is clear that to truly understand an object you must understand the historical context in which it was made.
History is only one aspect in our journey to understanding an object’s importance, we must also understand its construction as well. During Same Anderson's time with the artist, he learns that using one's senses to understand an object brings us closer to understanding its construction. As the artist Edmund de Waal demonstrates in his one work, construction is key to understanding an object and touch can facilitate our understanding. Although we can gain much from our understanding of how an object is constructed, we can not expect that uncover everything from this process. This is noted when Anderson struggles to understand why de Waal chooses to cut and warp the pieces being worked on. De Waal creates his art threw his own imagination and will, and we can not truly grasp the intentions of this through object analysis alone.[4] Therefore we must recognize that while we can gain great knowledge from object analysis, we must reconcile the fact that we can not understand everything.
Although we can gain immense knowledge about an object through its historical context and construction, we must be introspective to understand what we are placing (or not placing) upon the object. One underlying theme throughout all of our readings has been the importance of present day technology. As technology increases our ability to gain knowledge from around the world, we are losing our ability to connect strongly with objects by looking at a screen.
[1]
[2]Time Ingold, "Materials against Materiality," Archaeological Diaglogues, (Cambridge University Press 2007)
[3] Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, "Furniture as Social History:Gender, Property, and Memory in Decorative Arts,"
[4] Sam Anderson, "Edmund de Wall and the Strange Alchemy of Porcelain," The New York Times, (November 30, 2015).
