What is reflected back at you?

"To see is to be seen...everything I see is like an eye, collecting my gaze..." (Elkins, The Object Stares Back)

Through our work with objects this semester, I've become more aware of the specific way that I view every object—as a practical set of choices made by an individual (or group of individuals). All object serve some sort of function, and for me, the joy of objects is deciphering and appreciating those choices, whether they are effective or not. I also discovered that I enjoy observing the progression of these choices through history. These decisions build upon each other and become more honed (and more appropriate) for each situation as progression happens.

One of the field trips that I most enjoyed was to SLAM. Although I had visited the decorative arts section of the museum before, I had not really taken the time to appreciate this part of the museum that I like so much (I love practical objects). What was so striking about this trip was observing the different contexts in which the objects were created, and yet the similarities between the materials and form. This reemphasized the point to me that everything old becomes new again at some point—which ended up being echoed throughout the semester.

At the Campbell house, another trip which I enjoyed significantly, I spent a lot of time looking at the specific decisions made in the decoration and furnishing of the house, especially in the context of what was available to the family at that point in time. I found that there were many uses that were difficult to decipher from form alone, for example, the bells in the kitchen. I was also struck by the physical changes in scale of the objects in the Campbell House in relation to what we consider to be normal scale today. Many of the chairs were much lower to the ground, while much of the artwork was much larger than I anticipated. I wondered if these formal choices were specific, or if they were just style.

I found that when I compared my approach to objects to my classmates approaches that I took a more holistic approach to dealing with them. Rather than just considering the physical object, or the history, or the human affect, I was concerned with the relationship between these, and other , ways of understanding the objects. When we did the group presentations on the fields of study, I was very intrigued by the discussion of philosophy, because that was a way that I had never considered an object. The implications of interactions of objects (especially the -ness of everything in relation to an object) was nearly too much for me to grasp. I was uncomfortable with the metaphysical concept of objects, and wanted to be more grounded again in tangible ideas that I could grapple with using a physical object, like history or even psychology. I was glad that we did not explore this subject much further, because I think I would have been at a loss trying to understand it.

One topic that I also really connected to (because I had many examples of it to work from, I think) was collecting. I spent a lot of time imagining what it would be like for my parents (or I guess myself) to start a museum or an endow a gift of the many specifically collected objects we possess. Reading about the specifics of collection gave me insight into how these collections relate to the greater sphere. I was particularly interested in the concept of in situ collecting—and if putting an object in a collection takes it entirely out of circulation. One thing that I thought about was my father's collection of crazy glasses. He uses them, although they're also a collection. The story behind why he has them is important, but not as important as the formal qualities. The glasses, however, are not in an entirely stationary point in their life cycle. Rather, the experiences that my family creates using those classes becomes part of their story and adds to their history. Maybe if they were in a glass case and were never used, their life would entirely pause, but that is not currently the case.

A question that this brought up for me was about the idea of in situ for the objects, and what makes the appropriate in situ. I wondered how my own belief that all choices about objects are specific decisions influenced how I think about in situ observation. I found that I believe that even though objects may be in an alien use, they are still in a particular situation. One example of this was the clip of antiques roadshow that we watched where there was curio cabinet that had been modified from its original, and was therefore worth less, even though the modifications had happened a long time ago in history. In my opinion, this object should be as valuable, if not more, because of the modifications, which represented particular historical design decisions and added more to the life history of the object. However, this is not the way that the collecting market sees objects. Instead, those decisions are seen as flaws and affronts to the original design. This makes me curious about what happens to objects that are meant to be modified and how their significance or impact relates. For example, if we considered a specific tag wall as an object, it would have been modified and perhaps mutilated from it's original form, but would that make it any less valuable? Is the value in the process, or is the value in the original? This is a question that I continue to grapple with. As a designer, there is a desire to have the value in the original, since that was the concept that you presented and worked on; yet it is simultaneously significant (and even desired) to have the value on the organic modification by the user. These cultural studies of modification are almost more interesting to me than the initial design, because they are more greatly influenced by culture.

I observed an example of this tension that perplexed me at Cahokia, where the mounds (especially Monk's Mound) had changed shape and purpose through the time of the Mississippian civilization in the region. The museum depicted the mounds primarily in one shape, yet there had been many other shapes and layouts. This was addressed through some exhibits, where the progression of development on the mound was charted and explained. As I recall, there wasn’t a particular value assigned to any one configuration, but I wonder if there were arguments or discussions relating to the relevance or importance of one configuration over another. This was also an issue in the Campbell House, since even though the brothers had not changed much since 1885, they must have made some modifications, and it erased a lot of their history to restore the house to it’s original condition, negating all the things that happened in between. This, however, was central to the mission of the Campbell House, where as at Cahokia, the mission was more focused on documenting the entire Mississippian culture, so it would have been incorrect to advocate for one configuration or another. Additional, the Cahokia mounds are still living objects—newly installed stairs, turf grass covers, plaques, and the erosion of weather and humans continually change their shape and their story.

For me, I find tension between the cultural relevance of objects as they were produced and their relevance as useful items that are representative of a culture and significant for certain purposes. As a designer, I want the designer of an object to be always correct, but at the same time, the user is in a way the designer, modifying the object to serve the exact function it needs to serve. The alien use of objects is as significant, if not more significant in their cultural relevance. The decisions that are made regarding objects are to me the central representations of culture and context, and can be read to explain many of these things, at any point in history, be it an object for yesterday or an object from the ancient past.

I look forward to taking my greater understanding of the reading of objects into my work creating and interpreting them. I feel I have a greater grasp on interacting with design decisions, especially pulling from a variety of fields and researching in a variety of contexts, and I look forward to all the objects that will populate the rest of my life.

Mid-Century Modern

I've been working on my CB project (seeing as how the presentation is in nine hours), and I've gotten to look through a lot of books about modern furniture, and I've realized that I love modern furniture. I love the lines, the materials, the form. It's so simple, and yet so elegant. I've always known that I've loved it, but spending several days pouring over books of modern furniture reaffirms that fact.

What this really brings me to in relation to objects is how I judge people who don't furnish their homes with furniture that I would approve of. I don't have many opportunities to interact with purposefully finished homes, mostly just college student apartments, where the furniture choices are more happenstance than purposeful. But, when I come across places that are furnished with highly ornate, almost Chippendale-styled pieces, I tend to perceive them as less progressive and less modern, regardless of the appropriateness of that particular style in context. I am very judgmental towards people with furniture that I find antiquated and unattractive—despite the fact that I recognize that it serves the same function.

The other thing was that I was reminded about design that solves problems—while I was reading through the book Herman Miller: The Purpose of Design, I got very excited about how HM approaches design problems, and the type of problems they could address with furniture. I was reminded of my table that I'm writing about, and how Heywood Wakefield was able to solve problems of availability, affordability and modularity by producing lines that were interchangeable, and being consistent in production quality and in other features such as color. Other issues, such as fitting tables into small spaces, and being able to be flexible in set up, were addressed with features like the strong drop-leafs on my table in particular.

Antiques Roadshow Object

What object would I take to the antiques roadshow?

Well, this is a difficult question for me because I don't really care to take any of my own personal objects to the antiques roadshow. The reasons why I value them are outside the context of knowing what an appraiser has to say about them, although I might be interested to learn the history of the object. But, all of my personal objects I value as a result of their design, functionality or sentimental value. As a result, I'm not interested in their monetary value, and may in fact be concerned that would distract from my actual attraction to them.

This is not the case, however, for objects that belong to my parents. If I had the chance, I would cart all of my dad's collections off to antiques roadshow, especially the beatles memorabilia. He has a very complete (and in someways unique) collection of everything beatles, and I would love to know what is and isn't valuable, and why. A lot of it is pure crap, but some of it is perfectly preserved and carefully handled memorabilia which could have some kind of serious value (especially in a beatles market).

My dad also collects a lot of crap, and I'm sure I will be very curious in 30 years to find out what the significance of all of the decorated glasses and the plastic figurines is to American culture and to the American antiques market. Unearthing the many treasures that belong to my parents will be exciting in the context of an antiques roadshow experience—I'm looking forward to finding out what treasures they've got squirreled away.

We Love Chunkeys

During my first visit to the Cahokia visitors center, I took a closer look at some of the many Chunkey stones displayed throughout the exhibit. Chunkeys appeared in the burial presentation of the chief, the display of the games, and in the products and materials section. I was initially attracted to them because of their smarties like shape—concave disks that looked like they were made of a heavy but smooth stone. In the products section, there was a chunkey sitting out that you could touch, and compare to other types of stoneware and creations.

The chunkey is about three inches in diameter, with a concave dimple on either side, colored either a gray or a pink, and nearly perfectly round. Although I couldn't hold one in my hand, just touch it as it was glued to a display board, I imagine it is quite hefty and just about hand sized. Chunkeys were made to be used as part of a game of strength and skill, where the players aimed spears at a rolled chunkey, and the one who came closest was considered the winner. The chunkey was meant to be held in one hand, and was meant to roll.

The stones were displayed in three cases. The first case, the chief's burial, did not have a label for the chunkeys. They were lined up with the other objects found in the tomb with the chief, next to the life-size recreation of his body on a bed of recreation seashells. There were a collection of chunkeys at the base near the feet. In the excavation photos, there was no evidence of the chunkeys, but the docent told us that they had, in fact, been found in the grave.

Around the corner from this display was the games and fun display, which described the game of chunkey stones, with pictures of people playing the game, as well as more stones and descriptions. This was the most informative display of the chunkeys, and also included clay children's chunkeys, which most likely weighed considerably less and were less valuable.

The final display was a products and materials display located across the exhibit floor from the other two displays. A chunkey stone was located outside the glass cases where it could be touched as part of the stone exhibit. The material was described, and other things made from that material were provided for comparison. This connected the chunkey with the context of its creation and the formal decisions made in its production.

The chunkeys were provided in both in context and in situ situations. The chiefs burials was based in situ—although the object was not directly where it was located, it was displayed with a life-sized model of the body and the funeral arrangements, depicting the exact situation. The other two displays, however, showed the stones in context, first within the context of the games of the Cahokia culture, and the second within the context of the production of objects in Cahokia culture.

The fact that there are so many Chunkeys on display, and that they are so prominent makes it seem like this game as a significant part of the Cahokia culture. This is in fact suggested in the displays, where it is discussed (and displayed) that people are often buried with their prized Chunkeys. The actual practice of the game is still pretty unclear, despite the explanation in the display, but the significance of the object itself is much more apparent because of the in depth evaluation in the three different exhibits.

Some of the objects displayed with the Chunkeys, such as the figures holding them, also suggest a cultural significance greater than awarded to most games. The amount of display space that is devoted to the Chunkey stone seems warranted by the amount of objects associated with the Chunkey that were found in excavation.

It mentions in one of the exhibits that Chunkeys are still used today as a game. It makes me wonder how the Chunkey stone came to be, which is not addressed at all anywhere in the displays. Since the displays focus on one particular point in history, it makes sense that they would not address anything else regarding the history of a non particular object—it quickly becomes too complex to address.

Mapping the LD Dameron Plot

LOGAN D. . Logan D. Dameron of S Louis died yesterday at Lexlnton, Mo., of heart disease. Last Fall he went to Santa Barbara, CaL, where he stopped until this Sprin, when he went to Lexlnocon, )Ao. For several years he had been suffering wih an affection of the heart, and hoped to renew his by travel }Jr. Dameron was widely known throughout Missouri and : tates, having for twenty years been publisher of the St, Louis CA'tstia Adeocle, the organ of the l[ Episcopal Church south of the St. Louis and conferences. He was an old Bt, Louis settler, and was connected with the Ltndell family by marriage. During his residence in S LoIs his toward the conferences of his Church was marked, and at his death his holdings in the Adcate became t-he ;7 of the S Louis and patronizing conferences. The news of his death was received with much sorrow by his friends, as it -as not known ha he was dangerously ill. A son and daughter Him when he died. 1. Dameron was in his sixty-fourth year.

For reading the cemetery monument, I looked at the family plot of L.D. Dameron, who lived from 1827 to 1891. I was first interested in the strange marble statue in the center of the plot, containing a highly degraded statue of a female figure, who has lost most of her face and hands. At first I thought this was the only headstone in the plot, but I quickly realized that there were quite a few more headstones, to the left, right and behind the plot. Each of the other headstones was exactly the same size, made of the same granite material, and facing forwards.

I decided to focus on the mapping and placement of the stones in the plot. To the left is an image showing the stones in relation to each other in terms of type. Red is young children, yellow is wives, green is miscellaneous things of unknown nature, purple is other family members and blue is Logan D. What is particularly interesting about this plot is that the small headstones seem to be replacements for previous stones, which makes sense since the marble stone to the right of the plot is so highly decayed it's hard to tell what it says. These stones are all so precisely uniform, but are actually produced over the period from roughly 1850 to 1919, so keeping exactly the same style seems unlikely. Another change is that Logan, Edward and Edward's wife all have slightly different notation on their headstones, stating the date of birth and of death, which leads me to conclude that all the stones were remade at some point in the granite material, and there was a transition later in history where the format of the stones was changed.

The orientation of the plot is roughly grouped into family lines by wife. Elizabeth, Logan's second wife, is located to the left of the center monument, while Mary, his first wife, is to the right. Cornelia, his third and final wife, was buried right next to him. Mary & Elizabeth's children are buried beside them, except Edward, the surviving son, who is buried behind Mary and next to Logan. It is unclear the relationship of Mary Dameron, countess, who is buried slightly off to the side. She would be most likely to be Elizabeth's daughter, but if she had become a countess, then it is not clear why she wasn't buried with her husbands family. Edward and Mary are likely the son and daughter that survived him after he died...unless he had another daughter who survived that married and is hence buried elsewhere.


If Logan were giving a tour of this plot, I imagine it would be very strange. He would have to say something like, this is the monument I had built to my wives...but I got the impression the monument was actually built to Mary, since one of her sons was inscribed on one side. Probably Logan realized shortly afterwards that he wouldn't be able to engrave all of his dead children on a four-sided monument, so he switched to burying them around. It was convenient that he only married three women, so they would all fit on the remaining sides monument. I imagine that he had Elizabeth's carved in after her death, and maybe Cornelia insisted her name join the other two on the central monument. He would probably go straight to Mary's branch of the tree, as his first wife, where she is buried with their deceased child. Then, he would likely visit Elizabeth and their many children...as he didn't have any children with Cornelia, I wonder if she would be given as much preference. He would probably explain the random object next to Mary's headstone as a piece of the earlier headstones that were replaced. He may also point out some close family members in the nearby vicinity and give an idea to what it was like to come here to visit all of his dead children...a truly sad and tragic visit for a man with so few surviving family members at the time of his death.