-----
Stand-up comics have become a point of reference for society. People in America know directly or have felt the effects of Jerry Seinfeld, for example, through catch phrases that permeated popular culture in the 1990’s. In 200 years the art and comedic potency of things like the puffy shirt and soup Nazi will probably have faded. The remnant, though, will be an understanding of social mores and common understandings of what is or is not appropriate behavior. In effect, that which was intended for art will become artifact. The same struggle existed and still exists in the realm of museums. Which things are art, which are just useful implements, and how do we know the intention of the creator?
From the late 1800s and into the present, the problem of understanding and classifying cultural artifacts has been tackled in different ways. Anthropologist Franz Boas advocated classifying objects according to their social meaning as opposed to physical function (79). To do this, he pushed for understanding “based on cultural holism” which meant “an ethnological specimen could not be understood ‘outside of its surroundings, outside of other inventions of the people to whom it belongs, and outside of other phenomena affecting that people and its productions’” (79). Thus, Boas saw any type of meaning for an object as purely proscribed by its niche in the society from whence it came. “According to Boas, ‘the main object of ethnological collections should be the dissemination of the fact that civilization is not something absolute, but that it is relative, and that our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes’” (83). Thus, Boas’s displays attempted to recreate situations that would display artifacts in use in “life groups” to approximate social situations in native environments within museums (81). Boas did not advocate artifacts to be art as such, but he led to the understanding of the importance of the meaning of cultural objects.
Beyond the realm of Boas, the other perspective of art vs. artifact was arising in France. The line of demarcation between beauty and instruction became fuzzy as anthropological displays began to emerge. “Exhibits were expected to reflect some clear rationale: museums of natural history presented instructive exhibits; museums of art presented things of beauty. But the place of ethnographical displays in this scheme of things was not wholly clear” (147). The collections presented were problematic because of their implications. The pre-Columbian American pieces presented a glimpse into a civilization that existed outside of European influence and was advanced in its time. “There was a subliminal sense that certain of these objects reflected, however imperfectly, the high aspirations of Art. They exerted a special force, awakened a sense of intrigue, or evoked strangely harsh judgments on their aesthetic nullity” (148).
What’s the Deal with Artifacts?
How Seinfeld will Guide the Future
From the late 1800s and into the present, the problem of understanding and classifying cultural artifacts has been tackled in different ways. Anthropologist Franz Boas advocated classifying objects according to their social meaning as opposed to physical function (79). To do this, he pushed for understanding “based on cultural holism” which meant “an ethnological specimen could not be understood ‘outside of its surroundings, outside of other inventions of the people to whom it belongs, and outside of other phenomena affecting that people and its productions’” (79). Thus, Boas saw any type of meaning for an object as purely proscribed by its niche in the society from whence it came. “According to Boas, ‘the main object of ethnological collections should be the dissemination of the fact that civilization is not something absolute, but that it is relative, and that our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes’” (83). Thus, Boas’s displays attempted to recreate situations that would display artifacts in use in “life groups” to approximate social situations in native environments within museums (81). Boas did not advocate artifacts to be art as such, but he led to the understanding of the importance of the meaning of cultural objects.
Beyond the realm of Boas, the other perspective of art vs. artifact was arising in France. The line of demarcation between beauty and instruction became fuzzy as anthropological displays began to emerge. “Exhibits were expected to reflect some clear rationale: museums of natural history presented instructive exhibits; museums of art presented things of beauty. But the place of ethnographical displays in this scheme of things was not wholly clear” (147). The collections presented were problematic because of their implications. The pre-Columbian American pieces presented a glimpse into a civilization that existed outside of European influence and was advanced in its time. “There was a subliminal sense that certain of these objects reflected, however imperfectly, the high aspirations of Art. They exerted a special force, awakened a sense of intrigue, or evoked strangely harsh judgments on their aesthetic nullity” (148).
These works were the cornerstone of Emile Soldi’s argument for the “rejection of the classical ideal in art, exemplified by the Greek, Roman, and High Renaissance traditions” because of the new understanding of artifacts from places like the Americas, Egypt, and Cambodia to be art (152-3). Soldi did not argue that all the pieces from these places were art, but that they were “sporadically interesting” (154). Soldi “eschewed inquiry into what he scornfully referred to as the beautiful and the sublime’ in favor of attention to the materials and tools available to artists and their level of technical competence” (154). The understanding of an object’s function and form, its place in society and craftsmanship, all began to unify in ethnographic displays “until the boundary between art and artifacts, the beautiful and instructive, began to break down” (154).
The point of the break came around the turn of the century. Avant-garde artists began to visit the collections of the Trocadero museum in Paris and began to draw inspiration from the “unscientific jumble of exotica” therein (163). What became known as the “primitivist revolution” was a period when a “process of revaluation revealed new tensions in its turn, for while modernists appropriated ‘primitive art’ to undermine established aesthetic categories, traditionalists like Raoul d’Harcourt strove to draw arrs like the pre-Colombian into the high culture canon or at the least to regroup them with what modern art historians label the ‘court and theocratic arts’ of ‘Archaic’ societies” (163). As moderns were embracing the material to go against the institution of art, traditionalists wanted to simply change the institution to include everything, thereby subverting the mods. Thus, ethnographers, who started the debate of meaning and appreciation in the first place, saw their roles change from historians of a sort to art collectors of a sort altogether different.
The pendulum had thus swung from an intense study of the origin of a piece, through an appreciation of the piece in its context, and then into an understanding of the piece in a contextual void. At this point, pieces of ethnographic interest were co-opted into the world of fine art and stripped of meaning beyond the aesthetic appeal. Margaret Preston is quoted as saying, “The student must be careful not to bother about what myths the carver may have tried to illustrate. Mythology and religious symbolism do not matter to the artist, only to the anthropologist” (86 Objets). In short order the objects of interest became pieces to be admired with little explanation of origin or intentional use. In fact, it is noted that the artists themselves were rarely asked about their own pieces. “African villagers are rarely asked to advise exhibit organizers about which masks merit the epithet of ‘masterpiece,” … In fact, the artists themselves…are often claimed to be oblivious to the aesthetic distinctions that define true art” (87). This, of course, goes against the very understanding of art in the West. Artists are presumed to make clear choices about the composition and representations within their pieces (88). Primitive Art, on the other hand, is supposedly created “more spontaneously and less reflectively—with less artistic intentionality—than works of Western authorship” (89). Given the definition of Primitive Art as such, the task, then, is to “acknowledge the existence and legitimacy of the aesthetic frameworks within which they were produced” (93). This move from ignorance of context into understanding an aesthetic helps to create an understanding of the art in its original light. Thus, Primitive Art becomes art appreciated instead of curiosity presumed upon.
Perhaps in another 200 years the issues of airline food and pirate-inspired shirts will be a thing of the past. What, then, of Seinfeld? If the culture at that point raids the DVRs of twenty-first century America, perhaps there will be a look at what was once funny. Will that culture mount the episodes in museums as incomprehensible beauty? Perhaps, instead, it will provide a guidebook for ethnographers trying to understand mating rituals of unmarried New Yorkers. Either one seems off the mark. Neither is right, because they are both true. And the element most needed for understanding the importance of the show is lost. It’s supposed to be funny.
-----
In other news, I've been quite a busy bee lately. Mostly in the reading of my sources for that paper. Also, I saw Tena and Sherman and Dave this weekend. It was a busy time! My work got rained out on Saturday (darn!) and so Tena and I went to Stoby's for lunch that day. It was nice. Saturday I kept Jenny company while she was under house arrest. Actually, I kind of just took a nap on her futon while she studied. I did go pick up Chinese take-out for dinner, though, so that was something.
Sunday I went to Antioch, and it was a good sermon. I introduced myself to Bobby Tucker, for those of you who have been asking about that. So now he knows who I am. I mean, kind of.
This morning I skipped Chinese in order to get my paper (above) written and printed 15x. I had to lead the discussion in class today, and that class is set up like a grad school seminar, so I brought my A-game. To my disadvantage, Adam decided that today would also be the beginning of Blue-Eye/Brown-Eye experiment in class. And, of course, since I was leading, I got to be oppressed Brown-Eyed. Try leading an academic discussion and the prof stating his disdain for your wording and (his totally bogus-ly noticed) under-preparedness. I tried not to get flustered, and I think I succeeded. Adam told me that I actually did a very nice job once the class was over. It was definitely intimidating, though.
Finally, read this.
I know this was a record-breakingly long post.
T
No comments:
Post a Comment