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.
It is interesting how you note that “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 also says “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.” These two quotes illustrate how much Baudrillard is concerned with the technological aspects of objects, while he also recognizes that there is more to the story than that. Without this last quote that I noted, I may have thought that Baudrillard had a narrow minded approach to this question, thinking more like a scientist looking for answers than an artist.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly is interesting how Baudriillard places so much emphasis on the technological aspects of work. To begin with, I think it's impossible to really label the qualities of an item as "essential" and "inessential" because objects vary so greatly in their ambitions. For instance, the technological aspects of a surgical tool are undoubtedly essential, but the structural framework of a sculpture intended to evoke emotion is secondary to the real purpose of eliciting a response. I think calling all objects essentially technological is too broad. Humans aren't totally practical and rational, and our relationship to objects isn't either. We're emotional, illogical, and complex, as is the way we interact with our built environment and the objects we create.
ReplyDeleteI understand that Baudrillard’s individual object is a part of the objective and systemized structure of relationship between objects. Thus, he seems to emphasize more how one object interacts with other objects than how the object functions. This idea makes me link Eva Zeisel’s Town and Country line with Baudrillard’s system of objects. Town and Country line shows a variety of different shapes and colors with different functions. But they communicate each other so create a sense of American melting pot including familial relations.
ReplyDeleteHe also seems to focus on the evolved form that is unified into the system qualitatively beyond its functional form. We might search answer for the artistic form through thinking the concept of his evolved form.