A Lesson in the Challenges of a Curator

Assignment #5

The following is my attempt, and I emphasize attempt, at designing the First Person Museum exhibit roughly following Parman’s six step process.  Although I understood my fellow classmate’s critiques of the actual exhibit design, I do like the curator’s approach of placing the objects in their “natural cultural settings” such as a dresser or shelf.  That made it harder for me to create my own design because I kept returning to similar ideas.  However, I harnessed the archaeologist in me and put more of a historic spin on the exhibit layout than the real exhibit.  Here we go…

Step 1: Mission Statement, Take-Home messages, and storyline

The mission of my project would be very similar to that of the individuals already working on the exhibit—I want to create an exhibit readily accessible to the local community, as well at the city at large, which resonates with the average person.  The project should highlight how every person, regardless of age, race, gender, and class imbues commonplace objects with meaning.

1.     Objects change over time; some change more dramatically or rapidly, but most objects evolve as human culture evolves;

2.     Objects can be deceptive; what one person feels is a commonplace blanket, for example, may be a young girl’s most cherished item.  People give objects importance and elevate them to a higher status.

Step 2: Organize the Storyline
For my exhibit, the storyline would show why the past is relevant how people in 2010 can connect with the people of the past by showing that these objects have a past just like their owners and the visitors.  Because of my archaeological background, I am interested in showing how an object from 200 years ago may look today—how has it changed?  Or has it really changed that much?  For this reason, I am using what Parman calls the “Comparison/Contrast” approach to organizing the objects. 

Step 3: Exhibit Arrangement
The floor plan consists of 16 glass cases that will house the objects.  They are placed around the perimeter of three sides of the room.  Each case will be dedicated to one of the objects in the collection and they will be arranged in chronological order depending on the development of that object or object type.  Above each case will hang two pieces of art; it will be like a “then and now” installation where the left piece of art will portray that object in a historical setting (possibly in the 17^th, 18^th, 19^th, or early 20^th century).  The artwork could be an original painting, a lithograph, a copy of an original painting, etc.  The piece on the right will be a photograph of the actual object in its typical context (such as a sugar bowl by a coffeepot or on a kitchen table). By juxtaposing an image of that object from an earlier time with a contemporary image, I hope to highlight how much, or how little, these objects have changed in both form and function.  In between these two paintings there will be a short text panel (about 50-100 words) briefly explaining how that object was originally used or came to be, similar to what we are doing for our final assignment.  However, I would like each actual object to have the owner’s narration accompany it; the owner would explain how they acquired it and why it is significant to them through audio rather than text.  I think by emphasizing the person behind the object, the visitors will have a deeper understanding and connection to the people and the object’s history. 
There is a seating area in the center of the room that is meant to spur conversation and exchange of ideas.  Because this is both a museum exhibit and community project, I hope that the owners of the objects, local community members, and outside visitors will feel invited to sit down and discuss the collection.  Although highlighting the history of objects is one of my goals, it is not the primary focus.  I want to create a space that not only demonstrates how commonplace objects can impact our lives in such profound ways, but enables people from different locations and points of view to openly discuss what they gleaned from the exhibit and maybe share stories about objects that have impacted them in a profound way.

Below is what I created in Floorplanner using my limited computer skills and artistic abilities.

Mundane and Emblematic: The Social and Cultural Significance

Serving pieces and tableware have been, and continue to be, integral parts of the human social experience.  At their most fundamental level, these vessels hold liquids and condiments that enhance the dining experience.  However, objects like Grace’s sugar-bowl and gravy boat are not simply containers that hold sweeteners for tea or sauce for meals; these wares are imbued with a deeper social and cultural significance.  The pewter sugar-bowl and porcelain gravy boat have histories unto themselves.  These objects document how the art of tea and dinner service has evolved and how they are used in contemporary context as compared to previous decades. 

The sugar-bowl and gravy boat are staples in most homes.  Considering the caffeine dependency of many employed men and women, and of course stressed out graduate students, sugar-bowls could be considered a ubiquitous storage container that sits on top of kitchen counters, sitting next to the all-important coffeepot.   However, the sugar-bowl can also be one element of a much larger tea service.  The tea set as a whole may be seen a symbol of hospitality, used only during special occasions or when entertaining important visitors.  Alternatively, it may be used everyday as part of a daily routine between friends and family.  The degree of formality is completely dependent on the context.  The same can be said for the gravy boat; it may be stored in a cabinet and only taken out on the holidays or it may be used every time mashed potatoes are served at dinner.  The social significance of an object correlates to the time period in which it is used and how it is treated and utilized by its owners.

Sugar-bowls and gravy boats have appeared throughout literature, television, film, and other visual arts.  They are basic components of serving sets and table settings, but their roles vary.  In a movie, they may simply be part of the backdrop or they could be used as a location for social gathering that assists in developing the storyline.  Being such mundane yet emblematic objects, sugar-bowls and gravy boats have the potential to bring a story to life. 

Drawing on my archaeological experience and interests, I want to make a final note on the actual material make-up of the vessels.  What an object is made of or from can provide the material culture scholar with another avenue of interpretation.  The very composition of the pewter sugar-bowl and porcelain gravy boat changes over time and space.  For example, porcelain wares were once esteemed as objects that conveyed social rank and separated the elites from the “middling sort.”  In 2010, porcelain cups, saucers, and other types of serving pieces can be purchased at a high-end boutique and in the clearance section of a department store.  The social and cultural implications that the physical make-up of objects provide are dependent on many factors, one of the most important factors being how the owners perceive their objects and the messages they are sending to society at large.  

The Historical Process

Assignment #2
The current owner of the sugar-bowl and gravy boat is Grace, but I do not think that she is the first owner of either object.  After my brief meeting with her, I believe that the objects had quite a history before coming into her possession.  The gravy boat is clearly dated to 1961 as noted by the maker’s mark on the base; Grace appears to be in her early to mid 30s.  However, I do not know any more information about its history before she owned them.  I politely told her the purpose and approach of this project and requested that she provide me with as little information as possible.  Furthermore, both pieces showed signs of extensive use.  The sugar-bowl had tarnished areas, surface scratches, and a dent on the rim.  The gravy boat was discolored in areas, the bottom of the foot rim was chipped, and the decoration was worn around the spout and handle. 

Both objects were originally produced as utilitarian wares.  Sugar-bowls are traditionally part of a tea set while gravy boats are part of dinnerware/tableware settings.  The wear described above demonstrates that the objects were not, at least initially, treated as merely objects for display.  This observation especially applies to the gravy boat; it has discoloration on the inside and around the spout and the gold decoration is worn in the areas where it would be held during service.  Interacting with the objects absolutely impacted my impression of them.  If I had seen the pieces from afar, I would not have been able to observe many of the subtle signs of wear such as the small chips missing from the bottom of the gravy boat or the dent on the rim of the sugar bowl.  I do not think that I would have felt that they were used as extensively as I have asserted had I not been able to see them up close and make note of all of the details.

I noticed that Grace had the serving pieces wrapped in layers of tissue paper and she handled them with extreme care.  This shouldn’t be a surprise considering the nature of this project is to exhibit objects that are important to ordinary people.  However, I noted the markings on the bottom of the vessels and Grace commented on the fact that she had never noticed the maker’s marks on the sugar-bowl or gravy boat.  I found that particularly interesting considering that, as an archaeologist, my first inclination is to look on the bottom of objects to see if it can tell me anything about them.  This also reinforced my impression that the two pieces were not often, or ever, used as serving pieces.  It seems that the purpose of the vessels evolved from utilitarian to sentimental and/or decorative as the ownership changed.

The Descriptive Process (Part Deux)

After meeting Grace and her objects this past Friday, I am updating the blog to reflect my new knowledge of the objects.  The object in question is not actually a painting and the keyword is objects, not object.  I was informed that despite being assigned "Grace's Painting,"  there was no painting; instead, I was handed a sugar-bowl and gravy boat to study.


The first of the two items is a pewter sugar-bowl. It weighs approximately 5-6 ounces and measures 3.5" high, 5" wide including handles and 2.5" in diameter on the base.  The vessel has two handles. The bottom has an engraving, "SINGAPORE-MALAYSIA SELANGOR PEWTER."  There is also a logo with the outline of a person in the center of the inscription.  The body of the object has an engraved scene of oxen pulling carts, palm trees, sailboats, and islands set in the distance.  The decoration continues around the entirety of the vessel's body.  The interior is tarnished and one side of the exterior is darker than the other.  There is one small dent on the rim.


The second object is a white porcelain gravy boat.  It weighs approximately 3-4 ounces.  It measures 3.5" high, 6.5" long from handle to the end of the spout, and the base diameter measures 2".  The bottom of the object reads, "Kaysons Fine China/Japan/Golden Rhapsody/1961 by kaysons Import Corp."  There is a gold line that runs down the center of the handle  and around the interior rim.  The body of the vessel has a gold and gray floral pattern on both sides.  There is discoloration on the interior and around the spout.  There are small chips missing from the foot rim.  In addition, the gold line is worn-off on the spot and on the handle where one would hold the gravy boat.

The Descriptive Process

Assignment #1:  Object Description

In beginning to understand my object, titled “Grace’s Painting,” the first class assignment required me to describe it from a purely objective quantitative and qualitative perspective.  What is the object’s size and weight?  What is it made from and how was it made?  How is it decorated?  What is its intrinsic value?  Unfortunately, I will not be able to answer these questions until September 10^th when I can actually see my object.  I was provided a picture of the owner, Grace, but not the actual painting.  As a result, my post must veer from the original intentions of the assignment.

In an attempt to exercise my analytical skills, I wanted to at least describe what I observed in the photograph that I was provided.  Grace, a woman with long dark hair, is sitting down at a wooden table.  She is holding a small blue notebook with lined pages in her right hand.  She is wearing a striped tank top and green headband.  Some writing and a small sketch in black ink can be seen on the page of the notebook.  There is a woman, also with dark hair, sitting directly to Grace’s right.  The woman is wearing a nametag that distinguishes her from Grace.  The table is littered with plastic beverage bottles, two red solo cups, and a small bag, and a pen.  Grace’s mouth is partially open and her left hand is elevated and engaged in a position in front of the blue booklet.  Volumes of books are captured in the background.

The photograph provides some basic information about the owner but not the object itself.  I do not know if a stranger, someone important to Grace, or Grace herself created the painting.  I cannot determine its size, weight, or how much it cost to produce.  I can merely engage in a brief discussion of Grace’s painting in relation to Jules David Prown’s classification of artifacts in the article, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method.”  Prown groups artifacts into six main categories—art, diversions, adornment, modifications of the landscape, applied arts, and devices.  Taking the title of my object as literal as possible, “Grace’s Painting” falls under the category of art.  The author asserts that the fine arts have both aesthetic value and cultural significance.  It is imbued with “the self-consciousness of artistic expression” and therefore has an additional complex element of analysis when compared to “mundane artifacts” (1988: 29).  Cited by Prown, Hauser argues that the aesthetic value and cultural significance are not linked and must be judged in different ways; aesthetics should not elevate or decrease the object’s cultural importance nor should its cultural importance impact the aesthetic value.

Prown also makes note that the aesthetic evaluation of a piece of fine art can be affected by external factors that may also affect how others perceive it.    In this assignment, the class was asked to evaluate an object’s aesthetics and physical attributes from a purely objective position.  I initially wanted to read into the photo; I typed statements such as, “The woman in the photo seems to be engaged in what Grace has to say due to her eye contact,” or “Grace is not directly looking at the woman so she is most likely talking to a table with multiple people.”  After rereading Prown’s methodology and his assessment of fine art, I went back and rewrote exactly what I saw in the photo and not what I inferred. Although I was not able to complete the assignment as intended, Prown’s article helped me objectively describe the photograph of Grace and will hopefully assist me in evaluating the object on Friday.

Cited:
Prown, Jules David. 

1988   Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method.  In Material Life in America, 1600-1860.  Robert Blair St. George, ed.  Pp.17-37.  Boston: Northeastern University Press.