Reading 3

In reading the intro of Jean Baudrillard’s “The System of Objects”, I found myself most interested in his explanation of the “technological plane” from which we understand objects.  He recognizes this technological plane as being an abstraction as we understand it; we are mostly unaware of the technological reality of the objects we use in everyday life.   I am interested in the idea that we are so familiar with the psychological and sociological, as well as formal context of objects that we regularly use (those which Baudrillard says are inessential), but are mostly unaware of the technological structure (the essential part) of an object.  He sees the technological aspect of all objects to be most essential to its meaning, yet talks about the necessity of not only technique but putting an object into practice in order to perpetuate the cycle of technological advancement and improvement.  I don’t really understand how the significance of an object can be entirely in its technological aspects even though it is through a process of being put into practice and altered repetitively that the object came to be how it currently is.  I see this process of an objects gradual evolution to be where its meaning can be found; the history of how an object came to be how it is. 

Baudrillard goes on to argue that in order to understand objects and the process through which they are “produced and consumed, possessed and personalized” we must understand their technological structure.  He uses the example of early and modern engines; the early being “abstract” as its parts functioned individually, and the modern engine is “concrete” as its parts work together to more efficiently complete the same process.  To me the existence of a modern engine is less meaningful without the knowledge of how the early engine functioned and why/how its evolution came about. 

While trying to understand Baudrillard’s ideas, I attempted to relate them back to ceramics.  I still think that a ceramic cup is less interesting if you only think about its structural and technological form, than if you consider how a user might interact with these forms.  I guess that I am still unable to understand how technological aspects of an object can be any more “essential” than other aspects.  For me, as a consumer as well as a maker of objects it is hard to separate the formal from the sociological and formal aspects of an object. 

The System of Objects, Introduction by Jean Baudrillard

Baudrillard, Jean. “Introduction.” The System of Objects. Verso, 2005. 1-10. Print.

            Rather than working to try to summarize the main ideas in this conceptually rich chapter by Baudrillard, I would like to discuss some smaller, detailed ideas that struck me personally which I find worth discussing. So here it goes.

            The first idea that grabbed my attention was that of the “ever-accelerating procession of generations of products, appliances and gadgets” (p. 1).  Although Baudrillard uses this as more of a context for his later points, I think it is important to acknowledge the fact that we live in a world of things. And not only that, but a world of things that is constantly growing, changing, expanding (etc.) from generation to generation. History can be recorded by technology and that technology is then recorded through the documented history of a culture. In ceramics, we make things that live in this context of the world, both functional and non-functional. We strive to engineer/design to discover/share beauty and we break the pots that don’t “make sense” in the world of objects.

            Baudrillard mentions how an “every day object transforms something” (p. 1), forming in my mind all sorts of intriguing questions. What is that “something?” Is it food (such as a plate), experience (the feeling of using and interacting with a plate), or relationships (the intention of a set of plates being to bring people together to share a meal)? He also writes of objects being linguistically defined by human interaction/experience/needs.  I believe this gives us a sense of the “who” of the objects we create, with the transformation previously mentioned being the “how,” the objects we create acting as the “what,” and the “when” and “where” being the cultural context.  The author then discusses the “personalization, of formal connotation, where the inessential holds sway” (p. 7), giving us (more or less) the concept of “why.” While it is important for an artist to keep his or her work open to change both technologically and interpretively, I think it is also important for an artist to begin to narrow down the key concepts that are important to them. There remains a more personalized and individual perspective that reflects what the artist needs to say. Without this aspect, ideas remain as ideas and objects as objects.

            In the last portion of this chapter, Baudrillard writes of “the ways in which techniques are checked by practices” (p. 9). It is interesting to me how, in pottery specifically, we as artists seem to experience both learning the sheer physical/technical processes (such as wheel throwing and mold making) and the conceptual/philosophical processes (color theory and formal visual elements) simultaneously. This process, although steep at first, continues throughout our experience and working with clay. We learn, practice, and play and it is through this that we discover the complex system of objects. We make things not just to create but also to learn. It is as Sanam Emami once said: “How you make something is just as important as what you are making.”

Molly Post 

Reading 3

I read the article titled The System of Objects written by Jean Baudrillad; this article contained many stimulating points and evoked some interesting thoughts. However the vernacular of this article made it particularly difficult for me to read, this may be just my personal opinion but it seemed so abstract that I was constantly getting lost in-between ideas. Other than that the authors attempt to relate objects to a spoken language and the designations that he made about objects and technology were very astute. The questions that Jean asked at the end of this article were significant because it gave me the ability to think back to the most important points that were made. The one question that stood out the most to me was “by what means does this ‘speech’ system (or this system which falls somewhere between language and speech) override the linguistic system”? To this question I would have to answer that objects create an understanding that transcends language barriers but the lack of ability to effectively communicate this understanding still exists. For instance two mechanics that speak different languages may have the same understanding of how vehicles work but their ability to communicate this understanding may be hindered by their language differences.     

Reading 3

Reading Response # 3

The System of Objects

By Jean Baudrillard

Response by Chelsea Skorka

I would first like to say: What nonsense. How did someone make an entire book dedicated to the system of objects? A better question would be WHY. I am intrigued by this introduction and would like to, in time, read this book even if it is to answer the questions I just asked.

While reading this introduction, a lot of things came to my mind, things that barely had to do with what she was talking about about but more or less, the reading was extremely dense, so I had to take each sentence in turn, and try to glean information from the words I did know to understand what the author was trying to say..

The book cover says “radical thinkers”, and this is exactly what they are. Radical to the point that I do not understand why the book was written. The only information I gleaned from the text was that objects and their function and their attributes and characteristics can be categorized. So I will respond to that...

As a species, it is natural for us to develop schemas, all species do. For example: A bear may have encountered one person in his lifetime that gave him food and then developed the schema that weird, two legged, hairless animals, wearing food colors, bring food. It is also fitting to add that without social context most objects in our possession at any given time would be considered simply by their physical characteristics.

I use this image of The Little Mermaid as an example of many things.

1. Ariel has developed schemas of her own from prior experience with similar objects.
2. A specific object taken out of social context may or may not allude to its actual function.
3. In observing an object without context we observe only the physical characteristics of an object, from this observation we can only speculate as to its function. Then we can get a glimpse of that society.
4. Not knowing what an object does can lead to imagination, innovation, and speculation.

WHY do I bring this up? These ideas can be transcended into thoughts towards making one’s own artwork:

• With the knowledge that each viewer or handler of your work brings with them prior schemas about the world, those schemas WILL BE projected onto your work. Thus, it is recommended to research/ know such schemas for better understanding of how an audience is going to react to your work.

        For Example: A tea cup. When presented with this object we consider certain things; can it hold tea? can I hold the cup? is it comfortable? uncomfortable? is this because of the handle? or the weight? or the heat? what does it look like? what does it remind me of? does the tea taste good coming out of the cup?

What is the artist trying to say through combination of all of these things?

Etsy seller StayGoldMaryRose

Hommage a Meret Oppenheim, Betty Hirst. Photograph: Eat Me Daily

• What happens when you, as the artist, takes your made object and change the context? Etsy seller StayGoldMaryRose takes away the concept of tea in these tea cups and adds new context so that now, these objects are worn and have no utilitarian value anymore.
• Through creating art we, as artists, are reflecting upon and reacting to our personal experiences. Even if we are experiencing someone else reflect on their experience. So as we create art we give a glimpse of social context, even if the art makes fun of something in society. When an artist makes a tea cup that is made of meat, we understand something about society. For different types of people, this has different meaning, because people bring different schemas to your work. Personally, as a person who does not eat meat and loves tea, I am repulsed by the concept of a meat tea cup. However looking at this form as an archeologist, I could conclude that there must have been some controversy about the topic of consuming meat. In the context of a teacup, I can speculate that the artist might have been making a statement about eating meat as often as we drink tea.
• As artists, we have the opportunity to really use schemas to our advantage, either to sell our work or make a statement or both. We can do this in many ways through pushing context, function, experience, and knowledge of a form.

Above is a drawing of a cabinet of curiosities. People would travel to foreign parts of the world and collect objects to bring back and place in their cabinet of curiosities. Usually after taking the object out of context the traveler would embellish upon the physical characteristics of the object (sometimes physically) and then by telling a fictional tale about what the object was, what it belonged to, and what that thing did with the object. Some of the objects collected were displayed as Unicorn horns and dragon scales. Much to the interest of the viewer of another’s cabinet of curiosities their imagination of the rest of the world was able to run rampant.  Thus creating the same: innovation, imagination and speculation as Ariel encountered.

However, throughout the centuries we as humans have begun to lose some of the old ways with the advance in technology. At one time, a caveman used his club, innovatively, to bludgeon, to bash, to poke, to smash, to show aggression, to hunt, to tenderize, to protect, to fight etc. Now we have multiple objects for each of those purposes.

While investigating an average kitchen these days one might find: a chopper, a lettuce spinner, a rice cooker, a vegetable steamer, a juicer, a popcorn maker, a toaster, a blender, a slow cooker etc. At one time, humans had fire, and a sharp rock. What I am getting at here is with all of these objects our lives have become more and more complicated even though these objects are supposed to make our lives easier, similarly to technology. And for what? We save five minute now putting the vegetable in the chopper but waste ten minutes later trying to clean the damn thing.

Below is a video giving us a perspective towards objects or stuff.

The Story of Stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9GorqroigqM

We have developed so many schemas and categories for everything that we tend to waste our time defining things and categorizing them. And for what purpose? The reading touched on an idea of making one part of a car that does multiple things. This is similar to the human body most parts of the body do multiple things, like a mouth chews food but also speaks, and a stomach breaks down food but also digests, blood carries oxygen to cells but it also carries carbon dioxide and antibodies that have different functions. The point I am trying to make though is that everything in the body works together to sustain life, thus everything in the body is connected. Much like everything in the universe is connected. So, we could choose to waste our lives trying to organize everything neatly into categories but everything IS connected so this is a feat of which one should not attempt. “The greatest illusion of this world, is the illusion of separation. things you think are separate and different are actually one in the same.”- Guru from Avatar cartoon.

Kohei

A part of the same whole.

Reading 3: The Order of Things

This reading, like the other we have had, was very rich. The author's thought process and description of the relationships, conversations and effects of things on one another was very engaging in that it made you really think about subtleties and details that often we do not consider deeply.

The author talked about 4 main "figures that determine the knowledge of resemblance with their articulations." The first of these was convenience (convenientia), or the juxtaposition of objects, like the touching of the beginning of one to the ending of another, or the edges of two objects coming in contact. This is not the normal connotation of connotation of the word convenience I think of. As I read about this figure, I kept thinking of our critique's in class, when we set up our work and this convenience starts to play out, without us even intending it to sometimes. Often though, we try to use this as a tool, or at least keep the possibility of it in mind as we put our work out on display. The second figure the author described, aemulatio, is "the means whereby things scattered through the universe can answer one another. This figure creates circles of connection, like convenientia, of resemblance with out needing contact. This relationship or interaction between objects of some kind seemed a little more abstract, requiring maybe a little bit more investigation of something to see. But of course this is something that I think many of us are trying to achieve in our work, creating the resemblance of something deeper or different through more than proximity or exact replication. The third figure was the  first two superimposed, analogy, this one seemed a little more familiar because I think is something that is obviously taught to us but the author describes on a much more complex and deep level. The author describes analogy as being able to create resemblances across space (like aemulatio), but also speak to "adjacencies, bonds and joints". The author talks about this figure being about subtle resemblances of relations, these relations can be reversed or refocused without losing their force or contradicting each other. This was good to think about in relation to how we are always seeking after different or new ways to go about building things or generating ideas. Why not start at the other end of an idea or form to get to a conclusion? The final figure was called sympathies. The author describes this figure as one that transforms, as a principle of mobility, a displacement of qualities that take over from one another in a series of relays. He talks about this being dangerous if left alone without other figures at work, that everything would run the risk of becoming the same. This is good to be reminded that there is a balance to be acquired in similitude. This concept also reminds be of the idea of entropy, or the disorder of the universe. It is the measure of progression towards thermodynamic equilibrium, at which forward and backward reactions are at an equal occurrence, things would be the "same", which would actually be very bad.

The author's writing made all of these interactions and relationships between things visually, physically and contextually carry intense significance. This was an interesting thing to think about and realize the power in working with, in and around all of these forces. We often underestimate or are unaware of these things being at work with in, between, around and through our work.

Reading 3 - The System of Objects, by Jean Baudrillard

Jean Baudrillard’s The System of Objects, talks about how objects uses as “practical or technical” are ever changing with the growing needs of the people that use such objects. That makes for a shorter lifespan that these objects are wanted/needed before the next, more improved model comes out. With new and improved versions of objects that came before being made, there are far too many different things in the world that we can hardly come up with a means to classify them. Their differences are too vast.

“There are almost as many criteria of classification as there are objects themselves: the size of the object; its degree of functionality (i.e. the objects relationship to its own objective function); the gestures associated with it (are they rich or impoverished? Traditional or not?); its form; its duration; the time of day at which it appears (more or less intermittent presence, and how conscious one is of it); the material that  it transforms (obvious in the case of a coffee grinder, less so in those of a mirror, a radio, or a car – though every object transforms something); the degree of exclusiveness or sociability attendant upon its use (is it for private, family, public or general use?); and so on.”

I find this part of The System of Objects to speak well to thoughts we need to have as ceramicists. In making our work, we need to have a very specific, intended purpose for that work. By asking ourselves what criteria of classification we would like our work to be placed into (or even touch upon many of them), we can then make successful pieces that are specific to those classifications. However, work does not NEED to fall under just one classification. Why couldn’t someone make a vase that functions well as a vase, yet still stand alone as a beautiful object? I think that is where art differs from what Baudrillard is speaking about. Art doesn’t necessarily have to be classified in a certain classification area. It can be classified as many things, if able to be classified at all. My question is what classifies art as art. Could anything be considered art? If art cannot fall into a specific category, couldn’t something not intended to be made as art be considered art? And something made to be a work of art function in a practical way? Is pottery considered practical, technical, or both?

Reading 3, Logan

Jean Baudrillard, The System of Objects

After reading this article I found myself questioning specific functions within objects that are specifically classified as art, for example the function of a decorative frame could symbolize as an item to furnish a wall, or could be represented as publicity in public space, or even as an artifact in a museum.  Or can art be anything?

Within further research, Jean Baudrillard, a sociologist and a philosopher, not an artist, specifically referencing Marxism. The idea that every object has a specific meaning or purpose is quite a scientific/theoretical/marxism conclusion. Within Jean Baudrillards' writings everything can be systematically understood in an analytical manner, but I personally find the world of art quite different.  Yes, an object can be examined or in other words "worked out" to fit any function, but not everything needs to be functionally theorized. Turning to Daoism, why cant something just be? Similar to the mind of a children, Daoism is raw form of surrealism, tapping into creation. I personally envy the mind of a child, to create and build without rules, regulation, and expectations is a beautiful thing.

Reading 3: The Prose of the World

Foucault, Michel, “The Prose of the World.” The Order of Things. Vintage Books. 1994: pp.17-35.

Foucault analyzed the concept of resemblance especially in the 16^th century that “played a constructive role in the knowledge of Western culture.” I think this concept could provide a background understanding on the process of abstraction and the minimal concept of repetitive serial imagery in Geert Lap’s forms. However, I am sure that I had better summarize and quote his writing to get a clearer idea on this issue.

I. The Four Similitudes

“Resemblance…organized the play of symbols, made possible knowledge of things visible and invisible, and controlled the art of representing them.”(17)

Foucault claimed 4 forms of similitudes (resemblance); convenientia (proximity), aemulatio (emulation), analogy, and sympathies.

1. Convenientia “denotes the adjacency of places… adjacency is not an exterior relation between things, but the sign of a relationship... resemblance connected with space in the form of a graduated scale of proximity… by this linking of resemblance with space…that brings like things together and makes adjacent things similar, the world is linked together like a chain.”

2. Aemulatio is “the relation of emulation [that] enables things to imitate one another from one end of the universe to the other without connection or proximity.” As the reflection and the mirror, emulation is the duplication of world “which stand immediately opposite to one another… [and] then become the combat of one form against another… The links of emulation, unlike the elements of convenientia, do not form a chain but rather a series of concentric circles reflecting and rivaling one another.”

3. In the analogy, “convenientia and aemulatio are superimposed… [Analogy] speaks of adjacencies [as well as] the confrontation of resemblances…it can extend, from a single given point, to an endless number of relationships… all the figures in the whole universe can be drawn together….[for example] Man's body is always the possible half of a universal atlas… Their relations may be inverted without losing any of their force.”

4. Sympathies “can be brought into being by a simple contact…it has the dangerous power of assimilating, of rendering things identical to one another… [Since] sympathy transforms [and] alters in the direction of identity causing things individuality to disappear…if its power were not counterbalanced, it would reduce the world to a homogeneous mass, to the featureless form of the same… This is why sympathy is compensated for by antipathy [that] maintains the isolation of things and prevents their assimilation…Through this constant counterbalancing of sympathy and antipathy …all the forms of the world remain what they are.

Foucault concluded that “the sovereignty of the sympathy-antipathy pair gives rise to all the forms of resemblance…The first three similitudes are thus all resumed and explained by it. The whole volume of the world, all the adjacencies of 'convenience', all the echoes of emulation, all the linkages of analogy, are supported, maintained, and doubled by this space governed by sympathy and antipathy, which are ceaselessly drawing things together and holding them apart”

II. Signatures

Even though 4 similitudes “tell how the world fold in upon itself, duplicate itself, reflect itself, or form a chain with itself so that things can resemble one another,” these similitudes are buried while they are exposing signs (signatures) on the surface, so could be visible only in the network of signs. Therefore, Foucault emphasized that “the knowledge of similitudes is founded upon the unearthing and decipherment of these signatures” through hermeneutics (the totality of learning and skills that enable one to make the signs speak and to discover their meaning) and seminology  (the totality of the learning and skills that enable one to distinguish the location of the signs, to define what constitutes them as signs, and to know how and by what laws they are linked). “The world is covered with signs that must be deciphered, and those signs, which reveal resemblances and affinities are themselves no more than forms of similitude…To know must therefore be to interpret.”

III. The Limits of the World

Since “resemblance never remains stable within itself…each resemblance has value only from the accumulation of all the others,” the 16^th century knowledge tried to “find an adjustment between the infinite richness of a resemblance” (between sign and their meanings), thus it developed the discourse of the Ancient, "Antiquity".

 

(On the other hand, Baudrillard’s idea on the objective and systemized structural evolution by technological development could also relate to the conceptual and formal issues of art objects. He claims that the new structure “represents a genuine advance…internally consistent and completely unified” which is showing “a convergence of functions within a single structural feature, not a compromise between confronting requirements.”)      

Reading 3

    Upon reading "Geert Lap - Some Notes On Ceramic Art", I realized how much knowledge, of the world of ceramics, I am lacking.  By that, I mean I am aware of the various art movements, Minimalism, Bauhaus, DeStijl, and Modernism, but not how pottery fits into them.
    Not knowing key names, or the significance of their place in history, made the article a little difficult to identify with.   Comparing other ceramists work, on various aspects to Geert's, required a little reaearch.  This wasn't an article about Geert Lap.  It was an article about the history of minimalist ceramic art, and how Lap fit into it. 
    After familiarizing myself with the other ceramists, I think Lap's work most resembles that of Hans Coper, and more contemporary artist, Allan McCollum.  All have a "minimalist" character, of refined perfection of form, present in their work. 
     Lap's work is unbelievable with the lack of lines, impressions, or hint of being hand made.  His work has an industrial look because of its simple, clean, and seamless form.  Although, in industry there are seams.  Each piece has an austere presence, with a balance between volume and form.
    Pink Point of View, a grouping of identically formed bowls, in various shades of pastel terra sigillata, lined up in columns to form a triangle, is an example of power in placement, of minimal form, in a series.  Lap's work is a mixture of art, industrial styling, and conceptual edge."
    Upon reading "Geert Lap- Some Notes On Ceramic Art", I realized how much knowledge, of the world of ceramics, I am lacking.

Reading 3

"The System of Objects" by Jean Baudrillard.

This was definitely a tough read, but I was able to put parts of it together better and better each time I re-read it.  Baudrillard begins by asking if the system of objects that man has created can be inventoried similarly to the way that man has inventoried all species of the natural world.  Although I often dislike classifying things by grouping them based on similarities, I appreciate Baudrillard's exploration of weather or not our system of objects is possible to classify with an 'adequate system of description'. He brings to light the meaning that objects hold to us beyond their general function, such as their cultural meaning they bring with their everydayness and how people relate with them and consequently, each other. Through the breakdown of the concepts that would need to be evaluated in a system classification, Baudrillard delves deep into the meaning of objects on both concrete and abstract levels.

I found the excerpt he includes from Gibert Simondon's account of the petrol engine to be especially intriguing.  Simondon explains the difference between today's engines and earlier ones, using two categories: concrete and abstract.  He states that today's engines are 'concrete' in that each part is closely associated with the others, working with them, and would not exist without the other parts.  Each component is precisely made to interact with the whole.  Earlier engines were 'abstract' in that each part had it's own task to complete, and had no impact on the other parts.  He compares this to "people, each doing their job without ever getting acquainted with their co-workers".  Before Simondon had even brought of this metaphor I had already begun comparing his description of machine parts to humans.  This may be because I have lately been occupied with the idea that humans are all connected, even though we seem to fancy forced independence.  He continues to delve into the meaning of machine parts and their individual functions in relation to the whole.  As the 'whole' evolves, individual parts will accomodate, sort of like the way that the natural world adapts to survive the given environment. In this way, the abstract becomes the concrete because of the relationships that are forced by the 'whole'.

Anyways, Baudrillard uses this analysis as a basis for his argument that objects have so many hidden components to their effects on us that they cannot be classified.  He uses the idea of language as a comparison by giving the name "technemes" to the technical elements of an object.  In the way that we create technology to serve its' objective function, we give it meaning much like syllables create words, which creates a sentence, which creates meaning.  But objects carry much more than these simple functions in their meaning, and therefore we cannot use a system like that of language in building a description of them.

Another interesting point.... we "meet successive needs by introducing new objects.  The result is that each object added to the sum of objects may be adequate to its own function but work against the whole."  This made me think of everything detrimental that humans are doing to themselves and the planet in order to gratify instant "needs".  We "need" to get places fast, so we need to use cars everyday, which are polluting the world and creating a much larger detrimental effect that isn't immediately realized in by us in our daily lives.  There are countless examples of this contradictory creation of objects.  I'm having a hard time understanding the following sentence though...."It even happens that a new object will be adequate to its function while at the same time working against it."  Does this relate to the first sentence I discussed?  If anyone can think of an example of this or help explain I'd be interested in hearing it.

Overall this article was very interesting, but I feel like a discussion of it with others who have read it would help me to better grasp the deeper meaning that Baudrillard is getting at.  It will be nice to read how others have interpreted it.

Clare

Reading 3

In the introduction to the article titled "The System of Objects", author Jean Baudrillard describes his theory behind the importance of human-made practical and technical objects that exist in the world, and the processes by which we as humans relate to these objects, and the systems of our behavior and relationships that are a result. He addresses the question: "...how can we hope to classify a world of objects that changes before our eyes and arrive at an adequate system of description?” and notes that mankind has an extremely varied and large amount of products which make us appear stable.

            Braudrillard is clearly very concerned with the technical understanding of objects, and notes that “the technical object will tend towards the state of a system that is completely internally consistent and completely unified”, though this is never directly experienced by us. In other words, the technical level of an object is of importance because if the object in question does not work well on a technical level, the object loses importance in other areas, and may not be able to function on any other level.

            What contributed the most to my understanding of Baudrillard’s point is how he states that “Each of our practical objects is related to one or more structural elements, but at the same time they are all in perpetual flight from technical structure towards their secondary meaning, from the technological system towards a cultural system.”  This is an interesting point, and can relate to ceramic art on many different levels when considering both sculptural and functional ceramic work. Each may have different structural (or technical) components, though the practical aspects may not be evident, and may end up meaning completely different things in certain cultural contexts.