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.
No comments:
Post a Comment