“The reason for thus gathering something may be that an object possesses an interesting formal quality or material property but it might also entail a particular symbolism or possibly even a disturbing linkage of object and a pre-existing label.”
(Fayett 2003)
Within this essay, I will compare and contrast both ideas of collecting and consuming within our current culture and how it has affected the making practices of applied artists. I will be using Bernhard Schobinger, Alice Sprintzen and Karl Fritsch as my main examples.
To some, the idea of collecting and consuming may be understood as an interchangeable idea of thought, however through my research I have come to find that these ideas have many differences.
Belk, Wallendorf, Sherry & Holbrook have described collecting as a “pervasive phenomenon” (1991) within our society, holding much more of a sentimental value to us in contrast to consuming. Collecting is a very deliberate and exclusive idea, as displaying collected items invites the viewer to observe and critique work, which in turn reflects on the individuality of the owner. Pearce comments on this idea of a perceived relationship between objects and how it “… rests in the objects themselves and what the collector can see in them.” (2013)
The collector’s sentimentality of these objects is what holds them on a higher plane in contrast to objects obtained through blind consumerism. Belk, Wallendorf, Sherry & Holbrook explain that; “collected objects are often anthropomorphized, fetishized and personified until they define and occupy the little world of an intimate family in which the collector reigns as absolute sovereign.” Through this, it can be understood that collecting can display a sense of power within the owner. Gay notes that possessing a complete collection “…is in some intimate fashion, a way of controlling and commanding the world.” (1989) This idea is interesting as it greatly contrasts the idea of consumerism – which can be seen as a form of capitalism, totally engulfed by the idea of interchanging goods for the gain of the consumer’s money.
Within Belk’s work, Engelman uses Sigmund Freud’s vast collection of objects as an example of the sentimentality within collection, “… the masses of figurines which overflowed every surface” with Gay noting it as “…an embarrassment of objects”. (1976, 1989)
Freud’s vast 2300 piece collection of Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Assyrian and Chinese antiques displays the great deal of care he placed in conserving these items with their “…assigned shelves and their glass cases” (Gay, Jobst 1978) Understandably, these items adhered great comfort to Freud, as his family noted that his shift from wartime Vienna to England was less emotionally stressful due to the fact he was surrounded by familiar objects. He continued this curiosity of collecting through personally searching for antiques on his travels and developed close-knit bonds with dealers who brought him objects of interest, displaying the “…questing spirit of the collector” (Freud 1914).
It is interesting to note that it is the collected objects that create the secure atmosphere of a home, rather than the physical structure of the house “… they are consciously intended to put the impress of the owner upon domestic space, to create a room of ones own in which one is at home.” (Pearce 2013) with Belk taking this further by saying “collecting is inherently acquisitive… the objects collected are acquired through marketplace purchase; and disposed of only at death.”
In contrast to this, we are presented with the idea of consumerism as something to rebel against, and in some ways – to fear. On the other hand, it can be argued that consuming, at times, can hold as much sentimental value as preciously collected items.
Cole delves into consumer culture, commenting on the encouragement of “…spending as a bonding experience – shopping with friends or trying on clothes with your mother” being “… examples of the ways in which consumer culture turns buying into a social phenomenon, rather than just an economic one.” (2017)
This is an interesting point to note, as collected antique items, though holding great emotional and at times financial value, rarely hold the same nostalgia of collected memories through experiences with loved ones.
Through collection, people may come into contact with likeminded people who share the same interests – creating a sense of community based around these cherished objects. Bauman notes that within consumer culture, people are a part of “cloakroom communities” in which “one feels one joins simply by being where others are present, or by sporting badges or other tokens of shared intentions, style or taste.” (Cole 2017) These are “…a momentary experience of community” (Cole 2017) and therefore will soon dissolve as an inevitable new trend is placed upon us.
Polish Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman delves into this topic, describing consumerist culture as valuing “…transience and mobility rather than duration and stability, and the newness of things and reinvention of oneself over endurance.” (Bauman cited in Cole 2017) This presents consumerist culture as something ever changing and growing, valuing the immediacy of goods rather than the skill of producing them. Both authors describe the fast paced nature of our society, alongside the constant dissatisfaction with our own identities through the emergency of being ‘on trend’. It is almost seen as our obligation as individuals to continue to purchase more in order to display our distinctive uniqueness to the rest of the world. Bauman describes this quest as “…disabling of the past” (Bauman noted in Cole 2017) with Cole explaining “…through a new purchase we can be born again…start over with immediacy and ease… phases of life easily left behind for something else.” This leads us to interestingly juxtapose collecting and consuming; as through collecting we are consequently acknowledging the past of an object, whereas consumerism is removing the thought of the object completely.
British author Peter Dormer reflects on the topic of consumerism within his most renowned book “The Meanings of Modern Design” (1990) with Harrod explaining that he explores “…the complex relations designers have with consumers and at the symbolism, metaphor and morality of product styling.” (1997) Within this book, he discusses the psychology behind the designing and marketing process of products, exploring topics such as “…gender based aesthetic assumptions” (publishersweekly.com) and the main target audience for such products. Interestingly, Dormer can be seen as alluding to the dismissal of consumer culture; “…the contemporary crafts movement has brought creative freedom to the middle-class artist-designer, yet in the process… craftspeople have been marginalized.” (publishersweekly.com) again highlighting the subordinate nature of the craftsman within our current society in comparison to the fast paced consumerism witnessed today.
Bernhard Schobinger is definitely an artist to note when discussing this topic; through playing with the contrast of ‘precious and junk’ he creates “…jewellery of extraordinary richness” (Fayet 2003) not only in the materials he uses but also in the forms, the underlying meaning, and the un-doubtable wit within his work.
Having trained as a traditional goldsmith, he interestingly moved away from such precious materials “…preferring instead to feature others that showed the emotional content or the conceptual work he sought” (Klimt02.net)
With the punk movement of the 1970’s greatly inspiring his radical shift in style “…he deprives jewellery of its function as a status symbol, making it a tool of expression within a universal critical language.” (Klimt02.net)
One of Schobinger’s most notable pieces is the ‘Broken Pieces from Moritzplatz Berlin’ (1983-1984) necklace, offering “commentary on Germany’s political history and contemporary consumer culture.” (Mfah.org) Within this piece, he contrasts broken Coca-Cola bottles, found in Moritzplatz (directly facing the Berlin Wall) with collected antique crystal beads, both commenting on the idea of collection and consumption, creating a discussion in reference to the ‘throw-away’ nature of our society.
Above: Bernhard Schobinger’s Scissor Chain (2014) (Source)
As we analyse Schobinger’s work further, we come to understand the personal connection he embeds into his work. At first glance of his piece ‘Scissor Chain’ (2014), it shocks and confuses the viewer, leading us to question why he would place rusted scissors alongside akoya pearls. However, it is interesting to note that Schobinger does this deliberately as it is not the pearls that are of sentimental significance to him, but the scissors that were previously owned by his mother. Sumner describes this as “…creating an accumulation of the life and energy of the objects” (2014) with Schobinger explaining further that “the meaning of things is the main inspiration for my work … every artwork should be a mirror of the present society in its whole complexity … [and] … reflect the conditions of the present state of life”. (Schobinger cited in Sumner 2014)
Numerous applied artists have adapted this rebellion against the conventions of commercial jewellery, no longer limited by what society defines as valuable or physically appealing and instead using their jewellery as a tool to present a statement on current society. Sprintzen notes; “Precious stones may appear alongside a rusty key, scale may be bolder, design may take on more of a sculptural stance as form interacts with body. As the aesthetic moves away from mainstream conventions images may not be as “pretty” but rather used to make a personal statement.” (2013)
The idea of using typically precious materials is now of disinterest to the contemporary jeweller, insisting that they now progress forward into the manipulation of uncommon objects. The history and context of materials such as gold, silver and pearls is a greatly understood idea by many, however the responsibility is placed into the hands of these artists to present often overlooked objects with a new context and subsequently a new authority; to elevate them to the same level of respect in which precious materials hold. Sprintzen re-enforces this new wave of making by stating that “Jewellery of this genre is an antidote to the wasteful, consumer oriented direction of modern life.” (2013)
Interestingly, German born jeweller Karl Fritsch appreciates and continues to use precious materials within his work, disregarding the traditional techniques of jewellery making and challenging the viewer’s perception of beauty.
His 2017 work ‘Ring #434’ uses silver and carnelian in an almost grotesque way. This piece is scattered by erratic hammer marks, fingerprints, irregularities and an almost uncomfortable stone setting. Ironically, this is what both attracts and repels the viewer – the idea that 24ct gold embellished with diamonds would be of the same value as plastic pearls and rusted screws.
Mark Amery perfectly captured the vision that Fritsch is trying to create here; “…the pristine presentation of gems has been upturned, as if some artist jester has been at work after hours. There is a precarious profusion of divergent materials in explosive clusters, sprouting like fungi from brightly coloured lumps of plasticine. That might sound ugly, yet it is both beautiful and original in the way it builds new ideas out of both championing and questioning the old.”
In conclusion, whilst both consuming and collecting appear to contain interesting similarities, through my research I have come to understand that these are separate ideas of thought. Consumer culture is much more of a social observation, inviting in economical and political factors to heavily influence this ever changing microcosm, where as the idea of collecting can be understood as a timeless appreciation for both the old and the new. Applied artists have certainly adapted their work to comment on both of these themes, mostly expressing a rebellious nature towards consumerism and an admiration towards the beauty in collecting.
2018-5-10-1525923338