#Its going to onjectively be a good time

[x-h3kk3ning-x]

Im going to the state fair in the morning with my two closest friends and Im like Nervous About It....sigh...

[porter-pumpkim]

object lifespans?

OK so I'm going way too deep into this, but, lifespans

My original idea was objects dont age but can die from literally anything else,

But then there's the question of objects that rot, objects that decay, corrode, or fade over time, resulting in, either I give everyone age immortality and see how that effects things, or go more of a different objects have different lifespans, and see where that takes things

For the no aging route

I don't think it effects too much until maybe their veriant of the late 1800's (not accurate to humans btw) when enough advancements and regulations are made that disease, injury, and workplace accedent deaths become much less common, and it becomes noticeable that people just, aren't really dying anymore, advancements start taking a very long time sense the sense if urgency isn't really there anymore, mortality isn't much of an issue now, so maybe that section of the story could be the objects figuring out, well, what now? What's the point of anything now that we literally fixed death and already explored almost the entire planet and its connected realms? Do they go stagnant? Do they regress as older generations refuse to allow change and try to bring back the "good ol days" back when life had reason? Do they try to skip to the space age and go beyond their own planet?

But then there's also the aspect of object fragility, there will still always be death as long as fragile glass, paper, food, and clockwork objects exist, this might balance things out a bit, or cause a societal issue as weaker objects are either babied or seen as lesser, maybe even both, characters like thermometer and red light are at a higher death risk than characters like motorbike helmet and skeleton key, now the conflict is less on a race against time and more on the device between sturdy and fragile objects.

For the some age some don't route

Different objects have different lifespans, in early time periods also resulting in a bit of a power gap as those that don't age seize power that they can't lose unless they're killed or overthrown manually, while objects that do age have to try and ensure stability while making more of their own kind to try and ensure their legacy's continue, likely food, paper, and some plant based objects have the shortest lifespans, followed by likely furniture onjects, clothing objects, and things like books, that need matinence to survive, followed longer lasting plant based objects, and ending in metal objects (elements might be a bit wonky) then things like stones, crystals, gold, and some silver objects being immortal,

This could lead to inturesting long lasting arcs, like the crown siblings, Goldie is literally immortal, she will never die of age, tarnished and their father are also potentially immortal if tarnished doesn't start corrooding, but then there's copper, copper is already corroding, out of the three siblings he is mortal, he's already dying and will die in what feels like nothing more than maybe a few months to Goldie and tarnished,

Tarnished is almost immortal, but compass and hook aren't, they will both die before him without proper matinence and he has to live with that knowledge that his lovers won't last as long as he will.

The fragility thing may still apply here as well

I'm probably going way too deep into this but it's fun thinking about how these things work, how an object based society would develop over time and function, what is their rate of advancement, what are the horrible fuck ups that show up in their history books? The misconceptions that continue for generations before its realized that it's been wrong the entire time? There's so much to work with!

[limestoner]

Watching 3 Fishketeers. Some thoughts.

• The clam sounds like a fusion of Richard Simmons and Jon Lovitz.

• a sexy octopus?! Again?! Well before 1999

• “Mary had a little clam. Who liked to ho ho ho”? It liked to deess as Santa? It liked to… make clam choder

• the clan’s she’ll must be made of muscle not mussel see what I did there because of how it moves and makes a wiggly smile.

• Finner’s jncrntjon: when an object is an object and a moving object strikes a nonmockng object and the force of the mocement is object is transferred to the nonmocekng and it continues the course bef begun by the first object that was moving

• I think he should have said “begun” instead of “began.” Finer days that the I mean Finner says that “the non moving onject takes the course *began* bg the first objext.” Let’s try a different bern. Been

Verb

The first object begins the course.

The course was begun by the objext.

The object (that was) begun through the course.

The first objext began the course.

The course was begun by the cedone object.

I eat the waffles.

The waffles were eaten by me.

Mom cooked the waffles that were eaten by me.

Mom cooked the waffles eaten by me.

“Course began by the first objext.” Incorrect. Your simply complicated (not complicated simplicity) sentence is grammatically incorrect z.

• when the barracuda comes I like to thing it ate what asshole clam kb its a at to Toby.

• Love the POV shot of the fish going through tbe kelp. I would 💯 watch a POV fish movie. Like you’re the fish. Maybe shot through a fish eye lens. No then it wouldn’t be like a fish

• damn Tika in the cave with the barracuda eye is so scary and then the fangs busting in I think that’s sxaryker now than when I saw this as a kid

• Does the barracuda understand the fish language? Could the fish talk to it? Or is it from Rock Bottom and doesn’t understand thlpflp their flplthrlp accent psthflp.

• I guess if the barracuda is hungry enough it doesn’t matter what anyone says. Though it looks healthy enough that I it think I could eat something else. Like if he said don’t eat my friend my stomach rumbles would be silencer

•That asshole clam again!!!!! Is he just flying around. Like a psychopath

• even though I knew the first time k saw this that Toby would be okay (spoilerre) because main character shields but damn that chase scene had me holding my breath!

• Gillas is Materfish

• O M G I only just figured it out now. Toby is quick-thinking because we saw him do the clam trick earlier to get out so he knows he can hide in there where he will be protected from the barracuda and rocks. AND the clam jaws will snap the plant wrapped around his tail. I didn’t appreciate all the layers of cleverness there

•Toby is quick thinking/impulsivity/emotions, Finner is deep thinking/judging, and Gillas is the stability/general thinking which means common sense

• “The most courageous violent fish I’ve ever met” is a good thing? Okay

• so Tina speaks French and French influenced English. How do languages work under the sea. Was she born off the coast of France and meandered into the Atlantic. Do fish like that live in the Atlantic

[riotbcngirlbrg-blog]

Injection + therapy

I went to Kronstad at 10 am and received my onjection and had therapy after and today it went really well, talking about lowering the dosis even more soon and we talked about the challenge with anger, sometimes coming from sadness or depression and I have allowed myself more before to let it out, hoping for understanding that I really want to do everything right this time so I dont fuck up when Im finally off the meds. Before we said goodbye my therapist said to me to remember not to feel to labeled with my diagnosis, that I am sane in my everyday life now and that she sees me more as a normal person, a diagnose is Ferskvare in norwegian she says, and that helped me. I also got coffee today in our conversation. It calmed me down to talk about my special friend and she understands I care alot about him. Just going to take good care of myself now and relax feeling bad from the injection, smoke a fat one and make some more coffee, have a long shower and eat some lunch. Hope its a good day out there, be sane everybody and take care ;) 

[asuoneemmajarvis]

Museum, Objects and Collection

A Cultural Study by Susan M Pearce

Museums, Objects and Collections

when looking at an artefact you are looking at ones thoughts

Europe has at least 13,500 museums, 5000 of which are in Britain

Museums

institutions which hold the material evidence, onjects and specimens of the human and natural history of our planet, in which case if this is the “definition”  of museums, surely if they were to embrace digitisation and virtuality then they would no longer be holding ‘material evidence’ and would be redefining their institution, literally the definition would need altering

think about the origins of collection, museum holdings assembled with some degree of conscious intention by collectors, immoral intentions of original collectors?

in a broad sense the museum of today / the modern institution as we know it came to birth in 15th century, Renaissance cities

15th to 17th century = early stages of modernity

up to 1950 = classic modernity

1950 onwards = late / post modernity

modernity concerned with the development of meta - narratives, overarching discourses through which objective realities and external truths could be defined and expressed

human history material and the belief in the essential individual

pg.3

“Museums held the tangible relics”

“The modern world came to define itself, both communally and individually, largely in terms of ownership of goods, which correspondantly came to be it’s most characteristic expression”

“The modern world has also been a world of things, of objects and material goods”

a commentary on how even contemporary texts discuss the museum in terms of tangible things

the world is now transitioning, we are no longer just a world of objects and material things, perhaps we are no longer in the era of post modernism but now with the digital age have reached the era of transition, seeping into early futurism, where we live through data, tweets, statistics, posts, likes, reblogs/retweets, instant messaging etc

both the way we define ourselves has changed and so has the way we give each other value one another, our cultural value is based on whom has the most followers rather than the most, or best, or priciest things

ideas of progress, the progress of history

shift in the Victorian role of the museum has shifted - Henry Coles 1884 definition of the purpose of the V & A, the museum and its social implications

three elements constituting this book - curatorial care, study and interpretation

Objects

Key words relating to describing an individual piece or number of pieces

- object

- thing

- specimen

- artefact

- goods

selective lumps of the physical world upon which cultural value has been ascribed

pg.5

“Material culture is that segment of man’s physical environment which is purposefully shaped by him according to a culturally dictated plan” (Deetz 1997:7

the whole of cultural expression falls into material culture

material culture held by museums today falls within broader frame

those discrete lumps of material culture “which have always formed, and still form, the bulk of museum holdings and which museums were and still are, intended to hold”? - is this still the case? if so should it be? should their intentions be more accommodating to the digital world we live in now?

cultural significance? what defines objects that end up in museums as distinguishably higher value? cultural value? value of creation? money value? sentimental value?

pg.5

“The crucial idea is that of selection, and it is the act of selection which turns a part of the natural wold into and object and a museum piece”

through selection and display things become part of the world of human values, a part which every visitor or viewer of the museum, gallery or exhibition brings their own personal value system - include this in my questionnaire? which objects are most culturally valuable to you?

specimen = natural history

the process of selection and organisation of one particular object into some kind of relationship with another, other or different material alters its interpretation/type and value, and also begins to build narratives, this is certainly how I work with collections, objects and stories to narrate history

thing = ordinary, yet elusive word for all these pieces, usually refers to objects that have bearing on our everyday lives - hence - ASU - Things Remembered exhibition title

artefacts - made by art or skill

goods = economics/production, market value

Collections

All collections have three things:

1. They are made up of some/all/or one of the types discussed - artefact, object, thing etc

Only a small proportion of the available material ever finds its way into a collection

Some collections by almost no means at all end up in an established museum

pg.7

“The process of selection lies at the heart of collecting”

“the act of collecting is not simple; it involves both a view of inherited social ideas of the value which should (or should not) be attached to a particular object and which derive from the modern narratives we have been considering and impulses that lie at the deepest level of individual personality”

- surely that individual personality is influenced by social/cultural norms, so can never be totally individual, a collective identity? Why do we all in a Western society personally collect similar items stored in a similar way? - ASU

Objects Inside and Outside Museums

pg.15

“even the humblest material artefact which is the product and symbol of a particular civilisation, is an emissary of the culture out of which it comes” (Eliot 1948:46)

“consider the solid silver cigarette cases of forty to fifty years ago, which no longer carried, have not yet joined the display of georgian snuff boxes in the curiosity cabinet, but lie instead stacked in attics, awaiting a decision as to their value - antiques or just weight in silver” (Douglas and Isherwood 1979:99)

“objects are lumps of the material world. They share the nature with all living things, including ourselves and this materiality distinguishes all that share it from insubstantial creation”

discussion on terms ‘material things’ and ‘matter’ - our ambiguous relationship to material, the physical means of living

objects and humans have a mutual capacity to be in only one given place at any given time - is this also now changing with digital media? Humans using messenger or skype can be physically in one place but communicating in another, people speak/require engagement verbally/physically etc where as objects can be a digital ‘thing’ - it transforms from object/material/real but it can be a thing digitally, we cannot

“as it moves through time, it acquires a history of its own, passing from one professor to another, perhaps from one kind of use to another, and from one place to another”

“this materiality of objects and the physicality of their anchorage, in time and space give them some special characteristics which I wish to single out for discussion as their social life; their power of physical survival that gives them a unique relationship to past events that moves curators and others to call them ‘the real thing’ “

when we digitise these ‘real things’ are they real at all - do they go into the ‘cloud’ of data, altered experience, its no longer a fluid relationship between people and things but a complex consumption of digital abundance

pg.21

“objects are all pervasive in human social life, and society as we understand it could not exist without them”

“they are intentional inscriptions on the physical world which embody social meaning”

“social ideas cannot exist without physical content”

“idea and expression are not two separable parts, but the dame social construct”

if you think about museums of the future online etc even if they use digitisation techniques, there has to be a physicality to begin with, other than in terms of imagery in order to have digitally documented that object into a virtual thing

in other words you can never really have just digital collections, unless everything collected in it was new media art or digital imagery (which is likely to be on a physical, still readable for now, SD card somewhere)

think/thing

beauty must have something to be beautiful

perhaps the research is less about identifying why museums are no longer relevant but defining exactly why they are?

thinking back to the museum definition, it shouldn’t be changed but expanded to be more accommodating and inclusive of the digital age  

museums as they are now will always exist but will they remain relevant?

‘if we can access them online and all objects can be seen virtually, how will the museum in the coming future keep visitors coming, especially if the museum of the now does not / will not exist as it did in abundance in the past’

the physical key to the cabinet - whilst digital is the norm, traditional analogue and materiality still prevails - humans are tactile beings?

pg.24

“we must therefore try to understand how it is that objects can operate in both the past and the present, how they work to create the present, what the nature of that relationship is and why it has such profound significance for us”

the end of history?

are we at a stale mate with the world of material and immaterial? is there no future, no futuristic all digital?

will it be the end of history but not the erasure of it?

how do we document today’s history - is it the role of museums to do this to start collecting information from twitter, photos from Instagram and messages from Facebook?

Physical objects that have been replaced by digital ones?

Whilst better physical things have made previous physical versions redundant, they are never totally obsolete and there are always a percentage of people that still use those versions - no physical thing has been made obsolete by its digital version

pg.32

“the physical character of objects means that they are capable of being owned, stored, and handed from one person to another, but the reasons why those things happen to them, that is either desirability, rests in the value that is ascribed to them by the community concerned”

we are always perceiving the given value of any object, but we are always also, modifying this value in the light of taste and circumstance

is the individual altering the value of the object or the object making the individual change their idea of value

pg.256

“within this material object and specimens have emerged with two crucial characteristics…constitute the metaphorical making of meaning, through behavioural interaction between material and person, but their materiality means they always retain a concrete and intrinsic relationship to the original context from which they came and to all subsequent contexts in which they have been placed. It is this capacity for reality which gives them, and so the museums which hold them, their ability to testify to the nature of past events, with all the weight which this has implied in a modern society which has needed material proofs of its knowledge and values, and in the capitalist system, which has needed ‘real’ yardsticks’ against which to measure its world of goods”

[awardspecificunitoneemmajarvis]

Research: Museum, Objects and Collection

A Cultural Study by Susan M Pearce

Museums, Objects and Collections

when looking at an artefact you are looking at ones thoughts

Europe has at least 13,500 museums, 5000 of which are in Britain

Museums

institutions which hold the material evidence, onjects and specimens of the human and natural history of our planet, in which case if this is the “definition”  of museums, surely if they were to embrace digitisation and virtuality then they would no longer be holding ‘material evidence’ and would be redefining their institution, literally the definition would need altering

think about the origins of collection, museum holdings assembled with some degree of conscious intention by collectors, immoral intentions of original collectors?

in a broad sense the museum of today / the modern institution as we know it came to birth in 15th century, Renaissance cities

15th to 17th century = early stages of modernity

up to 1950 = classic modernity

1950 onwards = late / post modernity

modernity concerned with the development of meta - narratives, overarching discourses through which objective realities and external truths could be defined and expressed

human history material and the belief in the essential individual

pg.3

“Museums held the tangible relics”

“The modern world came to define itself, both communally and individually, largely in terms of ownership of goods, which correspondantly came to be it’s most characteristic expression”

“The modern world has also been a world of things, of objects and material goods”

a commentary on how even contemporary texts discuss the museum in terms of tangible things

the world is now transitioning, we are no longer just a world of objects and material things, perhaps we are no longer in the era of post modernism but now with the digital age have reached the era of transition, seeping into early futurism, where we live through data, tweets, statistics, posts, likes, reblogs/retweets, instant messaging etc

both the way we define ourselves has changed and so has the way we give each other value one another, our cultural value is based on whom has the most followers rather than the most, or best, or priciest things

ideas of progress, the progress of history

shift in the Victorian role of the museum has shifted - Henry Coles 1884 definition of the purpose of the V & A, the museum and its social implications

three elements constituting this book - curatorial care, study and interpretation

Objects

Key words relating to describing an individual piece or number of pieces

- object

- thing

- specimen

- artefact

- goods

selective lumps of the physical world upon which cultural value has been ascribed

pg.5

“Material culture is that segment of man’s physical environment which is purposefully shaped by him according to a culturally dictated plan” (Deetz 1997:7

the whole of cultural expression falls into material culture

material culture held by museums today falls within broader frame

those discrete lumps of material culture “which have always formed, and still form, the bulk of museum holdings and which museums were and still are, intended to hold”? - is this still the case? if so should it be? should their intentions be more accommodating to the digital world we live in now?

cultural significance? what defines objects that end up in museums as distinguishably higher value? cultural value? value of creation? money value? sentimental value?

pg.5

“The crucial idea is that of selection, and it is the act of selection which turns a part of the natural wold into and object and a museum piece”

through selection and display things become part of the world of human values, a part which every visitor or viewer of the museum, gallery or exhibition brings their own personal value system - include this in my questionnaire? which objects are most culturally valuable to you?

specimen = natural history

the process of selection and organisation of one particular object into some kind of relationship with another, other or different material alters its interpretation/type and value, and also begins to build narratives, this is certainly how I work with collections, objects and stories to narrate history

thing = ordinary, yet elusive word for all these pieces, usually refers to objects that have bearing on our everyday lives - hence - ASU - Things Remembered exhibition title

artefacts - made by art or skill

goods = economics/production, market value

Collections

All collections have three things:

1. They are made up of some/all/or one of the types discussed - artefact, object, thing etc

Only a small proportion of the available material ever finds its way into a collection

Some collections by almost no means at all end up in an established museum

pg.7

“The process of selection lies at the heart of collecting”

“the act of collecting is not simple; it involves both a view of inherited social ideas of the value which should (or should not) be attached to a particular object and which derive from the modern narratives we have been considering and impulses that lie at the deepest level of individual personality”

- surely that individual personality is influenced by social/cultural norms, so can never be totally individual, a collective identity? Why do we all in a Western society personally collect similar items stored in a similar way? - ASU

Objects Inside and Outside Museums

pg.15

“even the humblest material artefact which is the product and symbol of a particular civilisation, is an emissary of the culture out of which it comes” (Eliot 1948:46)

“consider the solid silver cigarette cases of forty to fifty years ago, which no longer carried, have not yet joined the display of georgian snuff boxes in the curiosity cabinet, but lie instead stacked in attics, awaiting a decision as to their value - antiques or just weight in silver” (Douglas and Isherwood 1979:99)

“objects are lumps of the material world. They share the nature with all living things, including ourselves and this materiality distinguishes all that share it from insubstantial creation”

discussion on terms ‘material things’ and ‘matter’ - our ambiguous relationship to material, the physical means of living

objects and humans have a mutual capacity to be in only one given place at any given time - is this also now changing with digital media? Humans using messenger or skype can be physically in one place but communicating in another, people speak/require engagement verbally/physically etc where as objects can be a digital ‘thing’ - it transforms from object/material/real but it can be a thing digitally, we cannot

“as it moves through time, it acquires a history of its own, passing from one professor to another, perhaps from one kind of use to another, and from one place to another”

“this materiality of objects and the physicality of their anchorage, in time and space give them some special characteristics which I wish to single out for discussion as their social life; their power of physical survival that gives them a unique relationship to past events that moves curators and others to call them ‘the real thing’ “

when we digitise these ‘real things’ are they real at all - do they go into the ‘cloud’ of data, altered experience, its no longer a fluid relationship between people and things but a complex consumption of digital abundance

pg.21

“objects are all pervasive in human social life, and society as we understand it could not exist without them”

“they are intentional inscriptions on the physical world which embody social meaning”

“social ideas cannot exist without physical content”

“idea and expression are not two separable parts, but the dame social construct”

if you think about museums of the future online etc even if they use digitisation techniques, there has to be a physicality to begin with, other than in terms of imagery in order to have digitally documented that object into a virtual thing

in other words you can never really have just digital collections, unless everything collected in it was new media art or digital imagery (which is likely to be on a physical, still readable for now, SD card somewhere)

think/thing

beauty must have something to be beautiful

perhaps the research is less about identifying why museums are no longer relevant but defining exactly why they are?

thinking back to the museum definition, it shouldn’t be changed but expanded to be more accommodating and inclusive of the digital age  

museums as they are now will always exist but will they remain relevant?

‘if we can access them online and all objects can be seen virtually, how will the museum in the coming future keep visitors coming, especially if the museum of the now does not / will not exist as it did in abundance in the past’ 

the physical key to the cabinet - whilst digital is the norm, traditional analogue and materiality still prevails - humans are tactile beings?

pg.24

“we must therefore try to understand how it is that objects can operate in both the past and the present, how they work to create the present, what the nature of that relationship is and why it has such profound significance for us”

the end of history?

are we at a stale mate with the world of material and immaterial? is there no future, no futuristic all digital?

will it be the end of history but not the erasure of it?

how do we document today’s history - is it the role of museums to do this to start collecting information from twitter, photos from Instagram and messages from Facebook?

Physical objects that have been replaced by digital ones?

Whilst better physical things have made previous physical versions redundant, they are never totally obsolete and there are always a percentage of people that still use those versions - no physical thing has been made obsolete by its digital version

pg.32

“the physical character of objects means that they are capable of being owned, stored, and handed from one person to another, but the reasons why those things happen to them, that is either desirability, rests in the value that is ascribed to them by the community concerned”

we are always perceiving the given value of any object, but we are always also, modifying this value in the light of taste and circumstance

is the individual altering the value of the object or the object making the individual change their idea of value

pg.256

“within this material object and specimens have emerged with two crucial characteristics…constitute the metaphorical making of meaning, through behavioural interaction between material and person, but their materiality means they always retain a concrete and intrinsic relationship to the original context from which they came and to all subsequent contexts in which they have been placed. It is this capacity for reality which gives them, and so the museums which hold them, their ability to testify to the nature of past events, with all the weight which this has implied in a modern society which has needed material proofs of its knowledge and values, and in the capitalist system, which has needed ‘real’ yardsticks’ against which to measure its world of goods”

[awardspecificunitemmajarvis]

Musuem, Objects and Collection

A Cultural Study by Susan M Pearce 

Museums, Objects and Collections

when looking at an artefact you are looking at ones thoughts

Europe has at least 13,500 museums, 5000 of which are in Britain

Museums

institutions which hold the material evidence, onjects and specimens of the human and natural history of our planet, in which case if this is the “definition”  of museums, surely if they were to embrace digitisation and virtuality then they would no longer be holding ‘material evidence’ and would be redefining their institution, literally the definition would need altering 

think about the origins of collection, museum holdings assembled with some degree of conscious intention by collectors, immoral intentions of original collectors?

in a broad sense the museum of today / the modern institution as we know it came to birth in 15th century, Renaissance cities

15th to 17th century = early stages of modernity

up to 1950 = classic modernity

1950 onwards = late / post modernity

modernity concerned with the development of meta - narratives, overarching discourses through which objective realities and external truths could be defined and expressed

human history material and the belief in the essential individual

pg.3

“Museums held the tangible relics”

“The modern world came to define itself, both communally and individually, largely in terms of ownership of goods, which correspondantly came to be it’s most characteristic expression”

“The modern world has also been a world of things, of objects and material goods”

a commentary on how even contemporary texts discuss the museum in terms of tangible things

the world is now transitioning, we are no longer just a world of objects and material things, perhaps we are no longer in the era of post modernism but now with the digital age have reached the era of transition, seeping into early futurism, where we live through data, tweets, statistics, posts, likes, reblogs/retweets, instant messaging etc

both the way we define ourselves has changed and so has the way we give each other value one another, our cultural value is based on whom has the most followers rather than the most, or best, or priciest things

ideas of progress, the progress of history

shift in the Victorian role of the museum has shifted - Henry Coles 1884 definition of the purpose of the V & A, the museum and its social implications

three elements constituting this book - curatorial care, study and interpretation

Objects

Key words relating to describing an individual piece or number of pieces

- object

- thing

- specimen

- artefact

- goods

selective lumps of the physical world upon which cultural value has been ascribed

pg.5

“Material culture is that segment of man’s physical environment which is purposefully shaped by him according to a culturally dictated plan” (Deetz 1997:7

the whole of cultural expression falls into material culture

material culture held by museums today falls within broader frame

those discrete lumps of material culture “which have always formed, and still form, the bulk of museum holdings and which museums were and still are, intended to hold”? - is this still the case? if so should it be? should their intentions be more accommodating to the digital world we live in now?

cultural significance? what defines objects that end up in museums as distinguishably higher value? cultural value? value of creation? money value? sentimental value?

pg.5

“The crucial idea is that of selection, and it is the act of selection which turns a part of the natural wold into and object and a museum piece”

through selection and display things become part of the world of human values, a part which every visitor or viewer of the museum, gallery or exhibition brings their own personal value system - include this in my questionnaire? which objects are most culturally valuable to you?

specimen = natural history

the process of selection and organisation of one particular object into some kind of relationship with another, other or different material alters its interpretation/type and value, and also begins to build narratives, this is certainly how I work with collections, objects and stories to narrate history

thing = ordinary, yet elusive word for all these pieces, usually refers to objects that have bearing on our everyday lives - hence - ASU - Things Remembered exhibition title

artefacts - made by art or skill

goods = economics/production, market value

Collections

All collections have three things:

1. They are made up of some/all/or one of the types discussed - artefact, object, thing etc

Only a small proportion of the available material ever finds its way into a collection

Some collections by almost no means at all end up in an established museum

pg.7

“The process of selection lies at the heart of collecting”

“the act of collecting is not simple; it involves both a view of inherited social ideas of the value which should (or should not) be attached to a particular object and which derive from the modern narratives we have been considering and impulses that lie at the deepest level of individual personality”

- surely that individual personality is influenced by social/cultural norms, so can never be totally individual, a collective identity? Why do we all in a Western society personally collect similar items stored in a similar way? - ASU

Objects Inside and Outside Museums

pg.15

“even the humblest material artefact which is the product and symbol of a particular civilisation, is an emissary of the culture out of which it comes” (Eliot 1948:46)

“consider the solid silver cigarette cases of forty to fifty years ago, which no longer carried, have not yet joined the display of georgian snuff boxes in the curiosity cabinet, but lie instead stacked in attics, awaiting a decision as to their value - antiques or just weight in silver” (Douglas and Isherwood 1979:99)

“objects are lumps of the material world. They share the nature with all living things, including ourselves and this materiality distinguishes all that share it from insubstantial creation”

discussion on terms ‘material things’ and ‘matter’ - our ambiguous relationship to material, the physical means of living

objects and humans have a mutual capacity to be in only one given place at any given time - is this also now changing with digital media? Humans using messenger or skype can be physically in one place but communicating in another, people speak/require engagement verbally/physically etc where as objects can be a digital ‘thing’ - it transforms from object/material/real but it can be a thing digitally, we cannot

“as it moves through time, it acquires a history of its own, passing from one professor to another, perhaps from one kind of use to another, and from one place to another”

“this materiality of objects and the physicality of their anchorage, in time and space give them some special characteristics which I wish to single out for discussion as their social life; their power of physical survival that gives them a unique relationship to past events that moves curators and others to call them ‘the real thing’ “

when we digitise these ‘real things’ are they real at all - do they go into the ‘cloud’ of data, altered experience, its no longer a fluid relationship between people and things but a complex consumption of digital abundance

pg.21

“objects are all pervasive in human social life, and society as we understand it could not exist without them”

“they are intentional inscriptions on the physical world which embody social meaning”

“social ideas cannot exist without physical content”

“idea and expression are not two separable parts, but the dame social construct”

if you think about museums of the future online etc even if they use digitisation techniques, there has to be a physicality to begin with, other than in terms of imagery in order to have digitally documented that object into a virtual thing

in other words you can never really have just digital collections, unless everything collected in it was new media art or digital imagery (which is likely to be on a physical, still readable for now, SD card somewhere)

think/thing

beauty must have something to be beautiful

perhaps the research is less about identifying why museums are no longer relevant but defining exactly why they are?

thinking back to the museum definition, it shouldn’t be changed but expanded to be more accommodating and inclusive of the digital age  

museums as they are now will always exist but will they remain relevant?

‘if we can access them online and all objects can be seen virtually, how will the museum in the coming future keep visitors coming, especially if the museum of the now does not / will not exist as it did in abundance in the past’ - potential research paper focus/title?

the physical key to the cabinet - whilst digital is the norm, traditional analogue and materiality still prevails - humans are tactile beings?

pg.24

“we must therefore try to understand how it is that objects can operate in both the past and the present, how they work to create the present, what the nature of that relationship is and why it has such profound significance for us”

the end of history?

are we at a stale mate with the world of material and immaterial? is there no future, no futuristic all digital?

will it be the end of history but not the erasure of it?

how do we document today’s history - is it the role of museums to do this to start collecting information from twitter, photos from Instagram and messages from Facebook?

Physical objects that have been replaced by digital ones?

Whilst better physical things have made previous physical versions redundant, they are never totally obsolete and there are always a percentage of people that still use those versions - no physical thing has been made obsolete by its digital version

pg.32

“the physical character of objects means that they are capable of being owned, stored, and handed from one person to another, but the reasons why those things happen to them, that is either desirability, rests in the value that is ascribed to them by the community concerned”

we are always perceiving the given value of any object, but we are always also, modifying this value in the light of taste and circumstance

is the individual altering the value of the object or the object making the individual change their idea of value

pg.256

“within this material object and specimens have emerged with two crucial characteristics...constitute the metaphorical making of meaning, through behavioural interaction between material and person, but their materiality means they always retain a concrete and intrinsic relationship to the original context from which they came and to all subsequent contexts in which they have been placed. It is this capacity for reality which gives them, and so the museums which hold them, their ability to testify to the nature of past events, with all the weight which this has implied in a modern society which has needed material proofs of its knowledge and values, and in the capitalist system, which has needed ‘real’ yardsticks’ against which to measure its world of goods”

[researchintopracticeemmajarvis]

Museums Objects and Collections, A Cultural Study By Susan M Pearce

Museums, Objects and Collections 

when looking at an artefact you are looking at ones thoughts 

Europe has at least 13,500 museums, 5000 of which are in Britain 

Museums 

institutions which hold the material evidence, onjects and specimens of the human and natural history of our planet, in which case if this is the “definition”  of museums, surely if they were to embrace digitisation and virtuality then they would no longer be holding ‘material evidence’ and would be redefining their institution, literally the definition would need altering 

natural history museums holds 67 million specimens 

think about the origins of collection, museum holdings assembled with some degree of conscious intention by collectors, immoral intentions of original collectors? 

in a broad sense the museum of today / the modern institution as we know it came to birth in 15th century, Renaissance cities

Questions to consider for research :

 - question the definition of the museum in todays society and culture? 

- perhaps we need to challenge these definitions? 

- the role of the museum in the digital age? 

- are museums still relevant? or are they now a thing of the past, much like the material they house? 

- how can we revitalise them? 

- how in a time of transition for information can we ensure these material objects are transitioned into the digital age but are simultaneously still engaged with, still experienced and appreciated for their material, historical and cultural value? 

15th to 17th century = early stages of modernity

up to 1950 = classic modernity

1950 onwards = late / post modernity 

modernity concerned with the development of meta - narratives, overarching discourses through which objective realities and external truths could be defined and expressed 

human history material and the belief in the essential individual

pg.3

“Museums held the tangible relics”

“The modern world came to define itself, both communally and individually, largely in terms of ownership of goods, which correspondantly came to be it’s most characteristic expression” 

“The modern world has also been a world of things, of objects and material goods”

a commentary on how even contemporary texts discuss the museum in terms of tangible things 

the world is now transitioning, we are no longer just a world of objects and material things, perhaps we are no longer in the era of post modernism but now with the digital age have reached the era of transition, seeping into early futurism, where we live through data, tweets, statistics, posts, likes, reblogs/retweets, instant messaging etc 

both the way we define ourselves has changed and so has the way we give each other value one another, our cultural value is based on whom has the most followers rather than the most, or best, or priciest things 

ideas of progress, the progress of history 

shift in the Victorian role of the museum has shifted - Henry Coles 1884 definition of the purpose of the V & A, the museum and its social implications 

three elements constituting this book - curatorial care, study and interpretation

Objects 

Key words relating to describing an individual piece or number of pieces 

- object

- thing

- specimen 

- artefact

- goods

selective lumps of the physical world upon which cultural value has been ascribed 

pg.5

“Material culture is that segment of man’s physical environment which is purposefully shaped by him according to a culturally dictated plan” (Deetz 1997:7

the whole of cultural expression falls into material culture 

material culture held by museums today falls within broader frame 

those discrete lumps of material culture “which have always formed, and still form, the bulk of museum holdings and which museums were and still are, intended to hold”? - is this still the case? if so should it be? should their intentions be more accommodating to the digital world we live in now?

cultural significance? what defines objects that end up in museums as distinguishably higher value? cultural value? value of creation? money value? sentimental value? 

pg.5

“The crucial idea is that of selection, and it is the act of selection which turns a part of the natural wold into and object and a museum piece”

through selection and display things become part of the world of human values, a part which every visitor or viewer of the museum, gallery or exhibition brings their own personal value system - include this in my questionnaire? which objects are most culturally valuable to you? 

specimen = natural history

the process of selection and organisation of one particular object into some kind of relationship with another, other or different material alters its interpretation/type and value, and also begins to build narratives, this is certainly how I work with collections, objects and stories to narrate history 

thing = ordinary, yet elusive word for all these pieces, usually refers to objects that have bearing on our everyday lives - hence - ASU - Things Remembered exhibition title 

artefacts - made by art or skill

goods = economics/production, market value 

Collections 

All collections have three things: 

1. They are made up of some/all/or one of the types discussed - artefact, object, thing etc 

Only a small proportion of the available material ever finds its way into a collection 

Some collections by almost no means at all end up in an established museum 

pg.7 

“The process of selection lies at the heart of collecting”

“the act of collecting is not simple; it involves both a view of inherited social ideas of the value which should (or should not) be attached to a particular object and which derive from the modern narratives we have been considering and impulses that lie at the deepest level of individual personality” 

- surely that individual personality is influenced by social/cultural norms, so can never be totally individual, a collective identity? Why do we all in a Western society personally collect similar items stored in a similar way? - ASU 

Objects Inside and Outside Museums 

pg.15

“even the humblest material artefact which is the product and symbol of a particular civilisation, is an emissary of the culture out of which it comes” (Eliot 1948:46) 

“consider the solid silver cigarette cases of forty to fifty years ago, which no longer carried, have not yet joined the display of georgian snuff boxes in the curiosity cabinet, but lie instead stacked in attics, awaiting a decision as to their value - antiques or just weight in silver” (Douglas and Isherwood 1979:99)

“objects are lumps of the material world. They share the nature with all living things, including ourselves and this materiality distinguishes all that share it from insubstantial creation” 

discussion on terms ‘material things’ and ‘matter’ - our ambiguous relationship to material, the physical means of living 

objects and humans have a mutual capacity to be in only one given place at any given time - is this also now changing with digital media? Humans using messenger or skype can be physically in one place but communicating in another, people speak/require engagement verbally/physically etc where as objects can be a digital ‘thing’ - it transforms from object/material/real but it can be a thing digitally, we cannot

“as it moves through time, it acquires a history of its own, passing from one professor to another, perhaps from one kind of use to another, and from one place to another” 

“this materiality of objects and the physicality of their anchorage, in time and space give them some special characteristics which I wish to single out for discussion as their social life; their power of physical survival that gives them a unique relationship to past events that moves curators and others to call them ‘the real thing’ “

when we digitise these ‘real things’ are they real at all - do they go into the ‘cloud’ of data, altered experience, its no longer a fluid relationship between people and things but a complex consumption of digital abundance 

pg.21

“objects are all pervasive in human social life, and society as we understand it could not exist without them”

“they are intentional inscriptions on the physical world which embody social meaning” 

“social ideas cannot exist without physical content”

“idea and expression are not two separable parts, but the dame social construct”

if you think about museums of the future online etc even if they use digitisation techniques, there has to be a physicality to begin with, other than in terms of imagery in order to have digitally documented that object into a virtual thing 

in other words you can never really have just digital collections, unless everything collected in it was new media art or digital imagery (which is likely to be on a physical, still readable for now, SD card somewhere) 

think/thing

beauty must have something to be beautiful 

perhaps the research is less about identifying why museums are no longer relevant but defining exactly why they are?

thinking back to the museum definition, it shouldn’t be changed but expanded to be more accommodating and inclusive of the digital age  

museums as they are now will always exist but will they remain relevant? 

‘if we can access them online and all objects can be seen virtually, how will the museum in the coming future keep visitors coming, especially if the museum of the now does not / will not exist as it did in abundance in the past’ - potential research paper focus/title? 

the physical key to the cabinet - whilst digital is the norm, traditional analogue and materiality still prevails - humans are tactile beings? 

pg.24

“we must therefore try to understand how it is that objects can operate in both the past and the present, how they work to create the present, what the nature of that relationship is and why it has such profound significance for us”

the end of history? 

are we at a stale mate with the world of material and immaterial? is there no future, no futuristic all digital? 

will it be the end of history but not the erasure of it? 

how do we document today’s history - is it the role of museums to do this to start collecting information from twitter, photos from Instagram and messages from Facebook?

 Potential practical outcome for RIPU ; 

proposal for a ‘new’ museum, that serves not to collect objects and artefacts but digital ‘things’ - traces, remainders and reminders of today, the history of now for the future

Research Task? : 

Name one object that does not have a digital version you can choose to use/view but has been entirely replaced, making the physical/old analogue version obsolete - is there anything? 

Physical objects that have been replaced by digital ones? 

Whilst better physical things have made previous physical versions redundant, they are never totally obsolete and there are always a percentage of people that still use those versions - no physical thing has been made obsolete by its digital version 

pg.32 

“the physical character of objects means that they are capable of being owned, stored, and handed from one person to another, but the reasons why those things happen to them, that is either desirability, rests in the value that is ascribed to them by the community concerned”

we are always perceiving the given value of any object, but we are always also, modifying this value in the light of taste and circumstance 

is the individual altering the value of the object or the object making the individual change their idea of value 

pg.256 

“within this material object and specimens have emerged with two crucial characteristics...constitute the metaphorical making of meaning, through behavioural interaction between material and person, but their materiality means they always retain a concrete and intrinsic relationship to the original context from which they came and to all subsequent contexts in which they have been placed. It is this capacity for reality which gives them, and so the museums which hold them, their ability to testify to the nature of past events, with all the weight which this has implied in a modern society which has needed material proofs of its knowledge and values, and in the capitalist system, which has needed ‘real’ yardsticks’ against which to measure its world of goods”