Within my contexts seminar group, the changing function of an object was something that we explored. We looked at this mostly in terms of the objects physical positioning being the factor which effected the change in function. It is my intention to further explore the different physical and also non-physical factors which can alter the function of an object.
If we consider the life of an object within the context of a wider society an objects function changes in a fairly straightforward way. It begins life in production, is then sold in a shop, is used and then becomes waste. I intend to dig a little deeper into the root of these changes and to explore them on a more personal level. Throughout I will adopt Frondizi’s stance, which is to use both the objective and subjective rationales together. This is because it is not separation of the object and subject which I am interested in but the tension between them. Therefore exploring the concept of function whilst embracing both views is I hope a more meaning full way to make judgments.
Like Baudrillard I am interested not simply in the utilitarian function of an object, but by the processes by which people relate to them. It is the systems of human behaviour and relationships that are created in this interaction on which I am focusing. It is this fickle ‘system of objects’ as Baudrillard describes it, which allows for multiplicity of functions in an object to exist.
As the functions that we assign to objects are continually changed by our own inconsistent needs. An objects function can often comprise of an assortment of partial functions that are often irrelevant or antagonistic to each other and so it is a ‘natural’ process for objects to exhaust one function and acquire another.
First of all the way in which we first physically acquire an object can alter its function. Imagine a Rolex watch, an object that is just as likely to have been bought as a gift as it is to have been bought directly by its owner. As a gift the Rolex will always hold within it the memory of its giving. The object has become an expression of a relationship or perhaps a symbol of an occasion such as parting gift at a retirement party for example. In this way the initial relationship through which we interact with the object may vary. Even if the owner of the Rolex has bought it themselves, the reasons for doing so may differ, it may have been purchased as a reward for example as well as to simply tell the time.
Regardless of how it came into someone’s possession lets focus upon this utilitarian function for the moment, as it is this reason why most objects initially come into our possession. As a time-piece there is already a multitude of levels of function to be found within its utility. A watches utilitarian function is already highly symbolic. Having a watch shows that its possessor needs to know the time. Suggesting that its owner is a busy and important person, someone that needs to be on time and has people who demand their time. The time-piece also allows its owner to position themselves within time, allowing a sense of control within something that is in constant motion. Giving them a sense of place, a way in which to keep track of time or even to simply to know when they are killing time.
I’m sure there are many more ways in which we use the utility of the time-piece but counter to common sense this designed function of the object lasts for very little time. It is unlikely that the owner of a Rolex watch would keep it solely for its utilitarian function. In the case of our Rolex watch in particular there is also another obvious secondary, if not in some cases primary function. The Rolex watch has a high monetary value, and therefore is valuable as a status symbol. However even this function changes over time, for despite the strong branding of a Rolex and its subsequent resale value as a status symbol, the watch can still take on the very different function of the personal time-capsule.
OK, so imagine our Rolex has become valuable due to an emotional connection from owner. This Rolex could be provoking a memory or even defining a culture…
‘The woman sat among the doomed things, turning them over and looking past and back…How can we live without our lives? How will we know it’s us without our past?’
John Steinbeck – The Grapes of Wrath
This quote illustrates the emotional function of the objects in our lives. It is a function beyond utility, reaching into the way in which an object can illustrate our own identities. They can provide us with a connection to our past, and our ancestors. The quote on the slide from John Steinbeck’s ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ it is a moment where the character who lives in the time of the Great Depression has had their home repossessed and has been forced to leave behind all that they cannot carry. Something, which has perhaps found a new resonance today.
This quote illustrates the emotional price we sometimes have to pay after investing symbolically in an object. When times are tough, which objects do we part with? At the moment we find ourselves even as a wider society facing this decision. With Town Halls considering whether to sell off their artwork for example. Here the decision becomes do we retain the object because of its symbolic function, or do we sell it as a commodity? And with its loss accept the negative consequences of appearing to sell out, and a loss of identity.
Jugo, excuse me if that was wrong! suggests that ‘Even though permanence for all time is an impossibility, individuals and groups work with exacting care to recreate the past for the present so that what they do in the present affects the future.’And so with the treasuring and valuing of objects ‘reason builds on such irrationalities’ as as humans we ‘live in memory and by memory’
Objects are our way of securing permanence in a world that is always subject to loss and decay. The Houses of our childhood have a depth and resonance in memory with objects serving as boundary markers in the symbolic configuration we know as home. The reverence with which we treat some of our household objects almost recreates them as household gods. They become special incarnations of emotional bonds, symbolising the permanence of a family group. They seem immortal until the advent of a new generation, which may cast them aside. Sometimes our special objects become reinstated in up-to-date nostalgia for whatever is old. And so the object gets a second chance to exist.
Imagine that our Rolex has now been inherited by the son of its previous owner. The watch now holds a very powerful symbolic function as a representation of the bond between father and son, giving the watch a subjective value far above its monetary value. For a family, passing on objects to the next generation legitimises them, and so objects kept within the same family for generations have, with retention not movement, gained value’ The crown jewels offer a great example of this, with each generation the crown jewels lend the new Monarch a huge symbolic power.
The makers of the Rolex watch use this emotional or symbolic connection to sell their watches dubbing the Rolex as ‘The watches of achievers.’ Citing examples such as the men who successfully scaled Everest for the first time as wearers of the Rolex. The website also showcases numerous images of famous sportsmen and women wearing their watches. In some ways this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, I’m sure they wouldn’t be telling us about the people who did not succeed whilst wearing their Rolex watches. This however offers us an example, which is often more unique to items worn upon the body. The objects physical closeness to the body imbues within it more power. The power of association to person creates in it a value, as owning the watch once worn by a famous or powerful person can lend to its new owner a feeling of power, the watch becoming almost a talisman.
The symbolic function of an object does not have to be bestowed, it can also be appropriated by a new party. The Eg T’ang dynastyfor example used regalia from earlier times to fabricate genealogical connections to former rulers and so helping to legitimize their presence. And of course the reverse is true, by destroying the objects which hold symbolic power it is possible to undermine the another’s cause. The destruction of the Tsar bodies after the Russian Revolution offer an example of this. By exhuming the bodies of the Tsar family and destroyed them, then shooting the remaining living they had removed a rallying point for a counter revolution
An object doesn’t have to be carefully honoured throughout its existance, sometimes the fact the object has simply survived through time makes it valuable. In this way what was once a disposable object, as it is even more likely to have been lost, can become unique, rare and fragile. Durkheim describes that ‘In this way a rag achieves sanctity and a scrap of paper can become extremely precious.’ Showing an utter transformation of function for some objects.
One excellent example of this can be found in The Robert Opie Collection. Housed in the Museum of Brands, Packaging and Advertising, the collection is made up of 12,000 seemingly everyday objects gathered over 45 years. The collection bestows a new archival function to the objects within it. The museums website describing it to have ‘power to unlock memories’ as together the objects trace changes in social trends, style, design and fashion.
This placement of everyday objects from another time within the context of a collection has altered their function. This removal from its spatiotemporal context, can remove the objects utilitarian function altogether. Leaving instead to gain perhaps unexpected symbolic value or status as an exotic object. Lorrand author of ‘Aesthetic Order’ offers the example of Primitive drawings to illustrate this change in function. Found in prehistoric caves these drawings are now presented to us as ‘prehistoric art.’ However we can only guess at their original function. For one the people who created them surely did not view these drawings as primitive art.
As well as removing an object from time to another, the movement of one object from one culture to another can also radically change its function. Something which we discussed within our seminar groups, and was particularly focussed upon by Divya. Imagine now that our Rolex has been given to a traditional African tribe for example. Its original function as a time-piece is unlikely to be what they will use it as. Rather it is more likely to be used as an exotic object, a piece of art or an ornament. In the same way that if we were to take an African mask, sacred in their culture as a religious object into our own they are most often used as decorative objects. And have become a part of the industry which generates kitsch.
And so the final change in function I am going to outline is the life of an object once it has become obsolete. Lorrand suggests that ‘When a utility object becomes obsolete, our attention is free to focus upon its aesthetic order” Using my earlier example of a Rolex watch, we can see a case in point. With the advent of mobile phones we no longer need a separate timepiece. Leaving the watches function to one of aesthetic value, a Rolex being kept now as an ornament rather than a time-piece.
Within the art world however obsoletion is not necessarily a requirement for a change in function to the aesthetic. The context in which the objects has been placed, can create a sudden shift in function that is forced upon both the object and the observer. Take Duchamps ‘Urinal’ for example from a utilitarian perspective Duchamps urinal has nearly zero informative value, it is still a functional object and so there is no ‘natural’ reason or gradual development as to why it is now displayed as an aesthetic object. However put in a museum under its new title as a work of art it is (or is expected to be) highly informative. Lorrand explains that this is because in its new status, the particular shape of the urinal, its colour, its mode of placing and above all the drama created by its unexpected occurrence in a museum all serves to create for us a new alternative way of interacting with the object, and so a new function.
There are of course many more ways in which the function of an object changes. And it is my role as a designer to consider this within my work. This is particularly relevant to my current research into a comparison between analogue and digital books. Much like the Rolex the advent of digital books has altered the functions of its analogue counterpart. So when designing an analogue book perhaps I should be considering its function as a tactile artefact, more so than its original more content delivery or inforamtional focused function. Though of course within a books multitude of functions perhaps it is my role simply to discover how and why we are using our books.
