1. Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.”
2. Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. (Pages 1-17 & 63-86.)
3. Tim Edensor, Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality. (Chapters 1-2 or pages 1-52.)
4. Bill Brown, “The Secret Life of Things (Virginia Woolf and the Matter of Modernism)” in Modernism/Modernity 6.2 (1999): 1-28.

In one way or another, Benjamin, Brown, Edensor, and Latour attempt to amplify the power of the object in the fields of sociology and philosophy. In our next seminar we will examine the distinctions between their propositions — between aura, life, agency, permanence, mediation, network, etc.  One area of difficulty I would like to examine during the next seminar is whether or not (or how) a researcher of objects (historical, social, theatrical, artistic, architectural) can use anything other than texts and languages in the production and dissemination of knowledge. In other words, if the physical world is at least on par with language in its ability to construct social networks, it would follow that non-verbal objects also have the ability to effectively describe, analyze, and deconstruct social phenomena and history. How could this be done? If you can think of a way to “do” history or social analysis without text, please jot down your ideas here. Perhaps you could even do it without text!  In addition to using the readings for this week, it might be helpful to recall the theme of our seminar and some interdiscipline that might reveal a “material” path to knowledge.

I’ve also provided a link to a gallery of photographs that seem to give life to inanimate objects through the manipulation of light and long exposure times. http://www.less-light.com/. I thought it was interesting that the vibrancy of the objects becomes apparent when a common element is subtracted: daylight. This reminds me of Latour’s argument that we can identify the mediators in social networks by their permanence, their ability to withstand changes around them.

I had difficulty finding examples around my home. I found items and technologies that cited the past but still had functional purposes — these don’t count I assume. A skeuomorph can be kitschy but not all kitsch is skeuomorphic. I eliminated brand names and logos out of hand. I had great hopes of finding some SKEUOs in my toolbox, but the items there were all insistently functional. Can an image be a skeuomorph, or only things, or technologies? I wonder if Heidegger can help us sort out the definition. For MH, a hammer is a “thing” because it is purely functional. Here is Graham Harman’s summary:

“As Heidegger puts it, ‘the less we just stare at the hammer-Thing, and the more we seize hold of it and use it, the more primordial does our relationship to it become, and the more unveiledly is it encountered as that which it is—as equipment’ (Heidegger, 1962, p. 98). As opposed to the Vorhandenheit (or ‘presence- at-hand’) of phenomena in consciousness, the being of equipment is called Zuhandenheit (or ‘readiness-to-hand’). The latter term, ready-to-hand, refers to equipment that remains concealed from view insofar as it functions effectively. Present-at-hand, the opposite term, refers to at least three different sorts of situations. In Heidegger’s writings objects present in consciousness are called present-at-hand, and so are ‘broken tools’ that become obtrusive once they no longer function effectively, and so is the physical concept of objective matter occupying a distinct point in space-time. At any rate, present-at-hand and ready-to-hand are not two different types of entities. Instead, all entities oscillate between these two separate modes: the cryptic withdrawal of readiness-to-hand and the explicit accessibility of presence-at-hand.”

Sorry for cut-and-paste… but I need to reiterate these differences because I keep forgetting them. In any case, it seems to me that a skeuomorph can only be a “present-at-hand” object. Always out of date and citational, a skeuo can never be functional. It never withdraws.

1. not a book.
2. not a pole grabbed by a medieval patient to encourage flow during bloodletting.
3. not sure about this one.
4. not gold, not silver.
5. not a baseball trading card.
6. not a basketball.
7. not stainless steel.

That said, Egan’s dichotomous arrangement of human intelligence is worth a strong riposte.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/opinion/egan-creativity-vs-quants.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky came to mind at the last meeting. “Solaris” is a strange psychological journey through space and “Stalker” has a distinctly dystopian, post-apocalyptic feel.  Both films examine the metaphysical layers beneath science, technology, junk, waste, etc.   We may want to check one of these out as a group or individually.

Chris