I like when she said, “The souvenir must remain impoverished and partial so that it can be supplemented by a narrative discourse, a narrative discourse which articulate the play of desire”. I think that found objects particularly old or looking poor do help us feel the sense of nostalgia really well and human history in the objects. It become curious for us to navigate even without knowing, the experience of the original possessor. I have come to realize that when we pick an object, one thing that reminds us of ourselves is our role to immortalize that experience although in new context yet emanating from a trajectory of the original function. Susan said, the collector can gain control over repetition or series by defining a finite set or by possessing the unique object.  

Romuald Hazoume

                                                                                                Le Bouget, 2016

I see that the collection explores the identity of the possessor and his identity and it also relates to the relationship between the collected objects  and the possessor. That is where the narrative emerges, the possessor then articulates the past experience in terms of how that relates to the objects that he has collected. “In order to construct a narrative of interiority it is necessary to obliterate the object’s context of origin” (pg 158). The exchange of value it hereby related to this context. Sometimes there is a sort of infinity, there is a secret within the objects that their details may not be fully revealed to us.

She adds, "the collector can gain control over repetition or series by defining a finite set". The collector expresses obsession and value with repetition, some as a means of exaggeration, In the case of an artist, he displays the work also in a form fantasy and the critical way to seduce the audience. “ the boundary between collection an fetishism is mediated by classification and display in tension with accumulation and secrecy" With this analogy, I intend to relate it to Romuald Hazoume's work. He collects use gallons from different places and transform them to become a new object. He plays with repetition in his work, articulating his narrative as he investigates how the Europeans have taken most of the African masks and denied African's access to their history.  In that sense he intends to recreate his new form of  African mask with used gallons. He also plays with fetishism in his work, he decorates the masks with hair and cloths to express beauty in his masks.

Uncomfortable Truth, 2007

I like where she said, “ learn what you can about each object before you put it in the museum, and docket it not only with its name, but also with the name of the place in which you found it, and the date. I think that when we pick an object, their mundane settings help us with the concept in terms of its transformation, the curiosity of its experiential quality is when the viewers imagine where and what of the objects and how they have been transposed to have a new context in the exhibition space. 

A couple of years ago, I viewed a collection of historic designer gowns in the De Young Museum in San Francisco.  It was very successful because of its unifying theme of fashion, and its unifying subset theme of evening gowns.  The collection displayed how evening gown fashion evolved through time.  Gown design is truly a form of sculpture.  The designer must have an excellent mind for spatial thinking in order to manipulate fabric into a flowing cathedral for the body.

This collection did not give into infinity because it had a clear boundary with in the realm of fashion, in particular the evening gown.

The best example I can think of mediated desire is advertisement.  Corporate marketing is an expert in tapping in to the public’s minds.  One of the ways they do this is by implementing sensual, sexual over tones into the advertisement, even when the product has nothing to do with sensuality, or sex. 

Stewart talks about desire in this area of the text because desire is linked to the “grotesque body”.  Stewart talks about on page 105, “an exchange of sexuality can be used to effect the grotesque”.

Souvenir and Collection

Prompt 1

On page 136 Stewart writes, “The souvenir is by definition always incomplete. The object is metonymic to the scene of its original appropriation in the sense that it is a sample.” I also appreciate that the souvenir is not necessarily a homomaterial replica; it can be a representation in another medium. This makes me think about how literal this replica must be to maintain its function as souvenir, or how much of the (whole) must exist. It also links back to the Mike Kelley reading Playing With Dead Things where he talks about redundancy in sculpture, and sculpture as uncolored. If I remember correctly it was this reading that discusses the function of art that purely replicates objects based on their exactitude of color and form.

This made me think about Robert Dawson’s ceramic work. He plays with the idea of the traditional souvenir or collection with an unconventional perspective. Some of his pieces are prints on china that challenge the inherent delicacy and untouchability of those objects.

The souvenir in my own work mostly comes through ideas of memory or nostalgia. My more recent project that measured and cataloged the Florida coast through a series of solo picnics was all about the importance of embedded memory in place making. Each picnic used a series of constants (my gridded picnic blanket, the empty vessels for food and collecting, a book). I would collect souvenirs at each site as a way of cataloguing site, smell, shape and texture for each place.

Robert Dawson _ In Perspective Willow 1

Robert Dawson _ Spin

Robert Dawson _ Spin

Prompt 2

On page 159 Stewart goes on to say, “The finite boundaries these objects afford are played against the infinite possibility of their collection, and, analogously, their finite use value when filled is played against their measureless emptiness that marks their new aesthetic function”. This makes me think about earlier chapters in On Longing where Stewart discusses the importance of understanding something through its absence. Page 27, “We might emphasize the importance of a given moment by its absence, by the study of its surroundings, thus making the reader feel that there is a lacuna in the fabric of what is being narrated, or something that is being hidden”. For one I think Stewart is communicating that to better conceptualize ideas of infinity we need to measure something against the actual or the finite. This duality of the infinite to the finite is the collection being measured against the inherent physical limitations of an object.

I came across a collection that really excited me. A 79-year man in Italy has a giant rock collection, all collected from the same river. What I totally love about this is how arbitrary and deeply personal the collection is. There isn’t anything inherently valuable or culturally significant about his collection yet he goes to extreme lengths to both acquire and exhibit these objects. In this sense the infinite personal value these rocks have for the collector impresses me most. I’d love to learn more about the rhythm and reason behind choosing which rocks to take and how the method of grouping them.

Stewart says, “The souvenir speaks to a context of origin through a language of longing, for it is of the necessarily insatiable demands of nostalgia.  The souvenir generates a narrative which reaches only ‘behind,’ spiraling in a continually inward movement rather than outward toward the future.  

I understand this that the souvenir keeps us thinking about the past.  It keeps us reflecting inward, and remembering past experiences instead of focusing towards the future. It causes us to feel nostalgia and have longing.  In my current work, where I am highlighting the effects of man on animals, I have images of animals that have gone extinct because of man.  The images are monochromatic, and have an old world look to them as well as the date the animal went extinct.  Each image is like a souvenir of what once was.  For me, they cause me to feel nostalgic, and feel a longing for a time when nature was more abundant, and less affected by man. 

Bud, Kit, and Bo: the Souvenir and the Collection

1.

“Hence, in the case of the human models of advertising, we are given anonymity rather than identity.  Indeed, when a model’s name becomes known it usually means that he or she is about to become “animate” as an actor or actress.” (p133)  It’s an interesting thought that I find very true.  An actor whose name becomes a household name for instance, has their individual name erased and they are now possessed by popular culture as an object in a way.  When using printed materials in collages, everyone is an object, but the known actors and actresses carry meanings of their own as well as their objecthood in the constructed space.

On page 134 Stewart talks about on a wedding ring from a giant.  It’s interesting to think that it could be considered a collection, souvenir, gigantic, and miniature all at the same time.  Though it is from a giant is considered gigantic in comparison of average sized wedding rings, it is a miniature representation of the giant.  It is also a small representation of a marriage, which is many things and spans much of time, making it a souvenir.  And if it has been collected, it is a collection.

On page 134 Stewart says “We do not need or desire souvenirs of events that are repeatable.  Rather we need and desire souvenirs of events that are reportable…”  She then goes on to say, “The Souvenir is by definition always incomplete.”  In making art, there is a line to walk in giving information and leaving out information so there is room for the imagination and for a narrative to be given to it.  Stewart calls it "impoverished and partial" when talking about the souvenir.  “…it will still exist as a sample of the now-distanced experience, an experience which the object can only evoke and resonate to, and can never entirely recoup.  In fact, if it could recoup the experience, it would erase its own partiality, that partiality which is the very source of its power.  Second, the souvenir must remain impoverished and partial so that it can be supplemented by a narrative discourse, a narrative discourse which articulates the play of desire.”  I like the idea that a public mass produced souvenir can become a private an personal narrative. (p138)  It is up to the artist or the possessor to give it a narrative.  “It is not a narrative of the object; it is a narrative of the possessor.”(p136)  And it depends on who is telling the story and if we can relate to that person that their personal experience.  “We cannot be proud of someone else’s souvenir unless the narrative is extended to include our relationship with the object’s owner or unless, as we shall see later, we transform the souvenir into the collection.” (p137)

I can think of a lot of movies where people throw a souvenir into a body of water, defeating (most of) the purpose of a souvenir, but also saving it in a way, similar to what Stewart is saying about erasing the event’s own partiality.  This is a beautiful scene from one of my favorite movies Harold and Maude Directed by Hal Ashby in 1971.

What about leaving a mark at the location of the event that is being remembered, like carving your initials in a tree or writing on a wall.  Physical proof that you’ve been there, but you would have to return in order to see proof.  The act of marking a spot, with a partner for instance, is a way of commemorating the present in time and space.  No, it’s not a souvenir, but it is something similar to what Maude has done.

Unless I was daydreaming while reading, I didn’t see anything about scars or tattoos as souvenirs we carry with us.  Culturally, the idea of tattoos has changed considerably since 1993 when the book was written.  I thought of that after revisiting this scene from my all-time favorite movie Badlands Directed by Terrance Malick from 1973.  Start at 13:17 for context.  Kit says the line, “Lets crush our hands with this stone, that way we never forget what happened today.”

I am working on a project that plays with the idea of the souvenir within a collection of souvenirs.  In sort of an experimental fashion I showed the objects to a person in a context with other objects that could possibly form a narrative, then I showed a collection of objects with small amounts of messages and clues to a narrative, and then I explained all the objects and had the person react to that information and then try to put together a narrative around the collection.  The experiment is very much about what Stewart is talking about with the souvenir leaving room for the narrative and objects connected to the person plus the narrative all within a collection.  The person also puts on her own interpretations of my narrative and the holes in my narrative.

I have an idea for an entry to the souvenir part of the Spacecraft project (or just a teaching exercise). Each student brings in a souvenir but doesn’t show anyone until the students are paired up.  Show each other the object.  Those who are new to the object create a fake personal narrative about the object as a souvenir.  Each student then presents the object that holds the true narrative and also the false narrative.  The class decides which is which and why.

Lastly, my collages use the “suffusion of the worn” and the “metaphor of texture.”  Stewart writes on page 139, “Perhaps our preference for instant brown-toning of photographs, distressed antiques, and prefaded blue jeans relates to this suffusion of the worn.”  The worth of my collages is only to the “self’s ability to generate worthiness.”  I’m not sure what it all means, but I think it’s been my problem this whole time.

2.

In 1990, I was 9 years old and VERY into collecting baseball cards.  All of the boys from the neighborhood would get together to trade and talk cards.  Jon’than’s older brother Andy was 13 or 14 and had some income delivering newspapers.  That year he was on mission to collect the entire 1990 Donruss set through buying packs only.  An impossible feat, you say?  That’s what we thought.  With rookie stars like Ken Griffy Jr., and Sammy Sosa, and with 5000th strike out Nolan Ryan and homerun phenom Bo Jackson hiding inside those tiny red packages, it would be quite a journey to have collected all 717 cards.  Each card had a number on the back and he had a notebook with 717 numbers written down so he could scratch off each number that he would collect.  He would open packs to find 2, 1 or even no cards that he needed to complete the set.  Eventually, he had collected all the 717.  At the time Ken Griffy Jr. alone was worth close to $200 and very rare.  He bought a lot of packs of cards and became a legend in our neighborhood.  That set today, after accruing value for 30 years is worth NOTHING.  Not even worth nothing.  No one would want that.  The rise in popularity of cards and mass consumption, caused mass production, allowing for low costs, and again creating more consumption, and in the end losing value.  Having bought the set through buying individual packs added nothing, and all those valuable cards are worth nothing and this set that took him hundreds of dollars to complete only has value if he chooses to give it value.  What seemed like an infinite collection, was collected and then what seemed priceless, was then worthless.  A strange life lesson was learned there, but I haven’t quite been able to put into practice yet.

It's still a beautiful card.