"[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.