Today I spent at the library and at home, searching for the next step in understanding object theory and thinking about our collection as objects, artifacts, things, etc.
I started with the book "The Object Reader", suggested by a Visual Culture: Theory Master's student....which must have been checked out minutes after I looked for it, damn the luck.
I moved on to "The Material Culture Reader", but after skimming through, I realized that I'm not interested in what these items of clothing mean exactly, or trying to define them within their culture. Perhaps I will explore that route later, but it wasn't quite the right angle.
I then moved on the AM call numbers; the museology and museum studies section. I found Objects of Knowledge and The New Museology, so those should keep me busy for a while.
In Objects of Knowledge, I am reading "The discursive object" by Edwina Taborsky. A lot of it is about the semiotics of objects, and how they exist differently in the "original world" and the "museum world"--perfect. This is exactly what I was looking for! It's satisfying to find that people have put into words ideas that you have been turning over in your mind.....in this case anyways, because these ideas certainly are not new.
Most specifically, I have been thinking about my created meanings for these outfits, especially with no personal writing of hers yet uncovered, and thus no personal attributions of this dress for this kind of outing, and no "I looked awful/beautiful/out of place/fashion-forward in this coat", or what have you.
And I've been trying to think of what is IMPORTANT about this collection. Firstly: I feel that it has to be IMPORTANT for me to do my thesis on it. And I think it is! Although perhaps it is not, and I will learn that the hard way. But I'm banking on "is".
Secondly: this importance and my thoughts about it suppose their installation and view in some museum; it places value on potential placement on view in an institution, which is not necessarily fair to the objects. Do I assume they can't stand on their own? If no one but my family and the girls in the Tisch costume shop sees them, are they still valuable? As valuable? In my mind they always end up somehow exhibited.
So: after posing these questions to parties with varying interest levels, I answer myself that as a group of objects owned by (probably) one relatively typical middle class woman from Boston, they feel (to me) like a good foil to the works of sartorial art we generally see in art museums. I promise I don't use so many words; usually it's more like, "She's just so NORMAL". So my problem is: how do I make that interesting to other people? This "portrait" of a "normal" woman is contingent upon the survival of these objects; I am interested in the narrative created by the existence of these things of Marie Anna's, which served a very specific purpose. I don't know that I need to explain that purpose at all; with some minor notes on "the difference between then and now" I think most people could make correct assumptions about the use of each garment.
But fascinating that I feel the need to justify this study--a real museum mind, wanting to analyze, then share.
So I guess I am interested in making these objects discursive--things to be interacted with, meaning created through use and experience, as opposed to simply observed objects--those we measure and note the material of, avoiding ascription of meaning? Of course.
But how?
This is my favorite quote from the article, explaining a sort of ideal visitor experience and interaction with an object on view, in this case a totemic mask:
"If the interaction, let us say with the mask, is not a straight linear movement of the definition of the mask from the object to observer, but, as an action, helps to define both mask and observer, in their social existence, then we should perhaps be asking the observer to clarify what this interaction is doing to his own definition of himself, and also to the object. Is it identifying him as separate from such a culture? Is it encouraging him to seek objects in his own socio-cultural horizon which work in similar ways to define his own society's meaning? Is it encouraging him to be aware that he cannot, in his interaction, fully define the object as it is defined by someone in the tribal group?" (Taborsky, 1990, 69).
Learning about the self through objects. Do these dresses and jackets make an observer think about their own clothing? About what wearing a corset would be like, or what full-length skirts must do to a girl in the summer? Can I work the "women of history: they're just like us!" angle?
Ultimately, what do these objects express better than words or, more importantly and less easily defined, better than photographs of Marie Anna in clothing of the period? What does this do for the visitor who can't feel the roughness of this wool versus the soft surface of that wool? And certainly no one will be putting these garments on.....what IS the experience?
Part of it, I'm sure, is the fascination with the survival of things. What I hear so often in exhibits with other visitors is, "Where do they KEEP this stuff?"
We keep things in the guest bathroom closet at my grandfather's house, apparently. Here is an mid-19th century wedding dress that I found the other weekend while I was there:
The front of the bodice.
Detail of center front:
And the back (note the cotton fabric at the shoulder on the left, presumably for ease? it wouldn't be seen--hidden under the capelet)
I'm not sure of the dating of this dress, but the point at the center front of the bodice made me think 1840s.
See this Godey's Lady Book scan.
And this 1840s Parisian bridal fashion.
And this, at the V&A!
But the bell sleeves feel later, and I suppose the high neckline and covered shoulders place it later than the 1840s too. Like, in the 1860s. See, especially, the woman on the right in the last plate in this timeline. But this waistline......
The sweet little capelet:
The skirt sure does have a lot of volume, too (it's hardly cinched):
I'm sure there's something to be learned from the construction of the skirt (is it built to be worn over a hard structure or soft petticoats?) but I didn't get that far.
What I did see was this neat construction detail, which can also be found in the skirt I made this spring from the century before:
That little fold-over of fabric. Is it a reticence to cut? I don't imagine it would add so much volume, since unlined the silk was not terribly sturdy. I wonder if it tied in front or back? Presumably to save the fabric from wearing, the drawstring is of a different fabric, sewn to the skirt silk (I think it was cotton?).
As with everything, this is in perfect condition. Perfect! With some sweat stains, of course, and I should note that the stitching has come undone on one of the capelet trimming pieces. But that's it....
So: not Marie Anna's, but I thought I'd brag a bit. Part of the goal in reading about the meaning of objects is because I feel so lucky to have all these beautiful things that I want to share them with people in a constructive way.
Ideas?
Taborsky, Edwina. "The discursive object." In Objects of Knowledge, edited by Susan Pearce, 50-77. London: The Athalone Press, 1990.
