"[I]f you don't want the qualities of the substance you use, you ought to use some other substance."
Object. Meret Oppenheim, 1936.
Ruskin's objection is, of course, that gazelle fur is not a material appropriate for bowls and spoons and plates, but Oppenheim responds, This is not a bowl, a spoon, a plate, but objects, and rather one object. So, what is it that moves us in the first place to understand the work as bowl and spoon and plate, and what does this mean for comprehension? We immediately suppose the material is wrong, that the relationship, or order of things, is reversed; in fact, the material may very well be correct, and our signs requiring re-examination: bowl, spoon, plate.
It seems I haven't seen this piece in ages - and it says a lot, for sure. True, there are both positive and negative biases that can be put forth with regard to this art, especially in terms of our more contemporary intrigue with vegetarian and vegan perspectives; in terms of Ruskin this piece of art represents a truth and purity, I believe. I've been perusing this blog for about five weeks now, and I've wanted to comment many times, but I think I've finally been coerced into action: Mo can be a bit loquacious once induced - (fair warning) - let us see if I can keep up with learning and exploring the collective thoughts and inspirations within the blog atmosphere.
ReplyDelete