Objects, Art, and Reproductions

Artwork can provide us with both an understanding of artistic development overtime, as well as a intense insight into the past. Historian Jennifer Roberts deconstructs Copley's portrait Henry Pelham (Boy with a Squirrel), to delve into the complex world of information transmission between Europe and the New World in the Colonial Era. By understanding how Copley understood FINISH, we can better understand his premeditated artistic styles in Boy with a Squirrel. Roberts goes into such detail of the painting as to how the direction of Henry Pelham's ear made a reference to limited hearing.[1] What Roberts is able to convey is the many layers of history that can be constructed from viewing art as not only a hierarchically valued image, but as an object with distinct intentions by its creator. By looking past surface historical information of an art piece, we can fully understand the historical context and influence it had within society.

This is seen in Charles F. Montgomery's article The Connoisseurship of Artifacts where he outlines that ways in which one must look at an object to be a consumerist of artifacts. Although he is rooted within the school of object appraisal, Montgomery places emphasis on complete analysis of an objects creation and the intentions of the creator. From style to material choice, he observes all aspects of the object to under the lens of the creator's intention.[2] Once these elements are uncovered connections can be made between the object and its significance within history and society.

Although we can gleam many important details from the observation of a particular object or piece of art, many of us will not be able to observe these objects in person. To remedy this issue the reproduction of art and objects has allowed for the diffusion of material culture across the world. However, as Michael Yonan touches on in his article Toward a Fusion of Art History Studies, these reproductions are allowing for a detachment between the original piece and the viewer thereby distorting its original intent and significance. Without a constant reminder that the reproductions we view are direct descendant of an original, we can forget the importance of a multi-sensory understanding of an object.

In my own work, I will be analyzing the Celasiana or Germantown Rose found in the Wyck rose garden. This many seem like an odd choice for a material culture project, but many plants and flowers are an intentional product of human intervention and creation within a natural setting (with a creator whose intention can be understood by analyzing their product). Already I have gleamed much information about this species of rose from digital media, but without personal contact with this object I could miss understanding its importance with my other senses. As it has already been discussed there is only so much reproductions can provide us in understanding the material culture of an object, without physical contact with this rose I may not understand the influence its fragrance it had on the Haines family who cultivated it, or the way it is supplemented by the other plants within the same garden. As I move forward I will be taking on elements from these reading to understand to influence that reproduction can have upon an object and its cultural and historical significance.

[1] Jennifer L. Roberts, "Copley's Cargo," in Transporting Visions: The Movement of Images in Early America, (Berkley: The University of California Press, 2014)
[2] Charles F. Montgomery, "The Connoisseurship of Artifacts," in Thomas J. Schlereth, ed.,

 MaterialCulture Studies in America, (London: Altamira Press, 1999)

[3] Michael Yonan, "Toward a Fusion of Art History Studies and Material Culture Studies," West 86th (2011) 232-248.