Memorabilia and Everyday Objects

Throughout the performance of everyday life, as a society we generated the dependence on the function of materialism. The assimilation of objects challenges the everyday uses of possessions, circulating its meaning through the concepts of survival, fetish, sentiment and expression of private mythologies.

The artistic platform of contemporary art, generates representations found within the commonplace where familiar objects; at ease are given a privilege to be spectacular. Objecthood evokes a personal concept of time, feeling and memories. The dissolving line between the works of art and everyday thingness has been driven by modernity, allowing artists to challenge and distinguish the barrier between the subject and an object. Thingness generates opposition between ‘determinism - the fundamentally closed nature of meaning’ and ‘pluralism - the fundamentally open nature of meaning’ (Roberts,1998, p. 4). Photography’s intimacy with everyday allows to blur these two functions, initiating a new network of meaning and language of self- expression.

The notion of interconnects between function and assimilation, attachment and objectivity elevates the consciousness of objects redirecting it to social contexts as well as personal perceptions. As suggested by John Roberts, ‘’Without a model of the fundamental contradictions inherent in social reality the dynamic interaction between objects, relations and their representations becomes empty and formulistic. Dialectics simply become another name for the undifferentiated interconnection between things, or the passage and transformation of objects through time’’ (Roberts,1998, p. 6)

The process of making art using ‘thingness’ is driven through external and internal functions, filtering through individual law of attraction, memories, experiences and assimilations. The boundary between ‘living art’ and ‘art of living’ becomes blurred, challenging the concept of value and function. Value by definition is inaccessible, while objects are often associated with a feeling. Its utility becomes blurred with a sensation of comfort or pleasure. An object can become a reminder, extending its meaning through infiltration of an experience. These sensations often move us through the spectrum of time, where boundary between past and presence is blurred. We suddenly construct emotional and mental extensions. As a result of that we are able to explore the meaning of value through personal practises and assimilations.

The notion of objecthood shifts its meaning through time. It’s transitional abilities, often connect to the concept of fetish, driven by polarities of emotions to find sense of validation and affirmation. The work of Ged Merino effectively challenges the study of transitional objects. According to Winnicott’s theory, integration of comfort objects is assimilated to each one of us within early childhood. These often vary between a favourite blanket, beloved doll or a soft teddy bear. During this development of attachment, an object suddenly becomes a compressed substitute of unconditional love and security. It becomes a ‘thing’ which we can’t let go off, a shield which we hide behind when feeling low, a substitute giving us desired at that moment and time protection and comfort.

The work of Ged Merino 'Transitional Objects' (2016) focuses on collecting scraps of materials in order to create ultimately new sculptural objects. The polarity between the attachment and detachment, as well as neglect and utility recalls back the original functions of comfort entities, suggesting; wherever there’s absence, there’s also presence. The notion of time implemented within the sculptural piece questions the world as actual and imagined, distinguishing what the object once meant and what is means now. The imaginary construct driven by constant need of affirmation and security, creates emotional extension in which we fall into through desired feeling of safety, constructing a shelter around our destructive experiences. In opposition, the damaged state of the materials, questions its worth and value. During the process, the fabric becomes tangled around and around, repetitively generating obsessive movements, recalling back the motions of attachment. Suddenly, the meaning of the object is torn between the internal and external functions. The effects of time generate distortion and imperfection, making the object considerably less ‘desirable’, while emotional construct remains the same. Nevertheless, ‘’If the use value of things dies, these alienated and hollowed-out objects can come to be charged with new subjectivity, while, the things become ‘images’ of subjective intentions. This does not erase their thingness, dialectical images remain montages, constellations of alienated things and meaning. ‘’ (Art and Thingness - Part I, 2010).

The concept of death within the connotation of objecthood generates a mystification surface. The new surreal object, generates other function and meaning, nevertheless the traces of the past remain. The objects transmit from one place to another place, just like they do in our psyche according to the owner. The individuality of the object appears in a process of decoding. Protection and exposure, reflection and obscurity – these polarities of emotions become product found within different fabric scraps, drifting the meaning to its next possibility of reading. The ambiguity of seeing and being seen is extremely strong, as the sculpture creates a deceptive wall which generates a reflection back onto us. Only then we can resemble how strong the connection between the subject and the object is, depending if you feel too much or too little. Reality must incorporate contradictions in order to allow us to move from our subjectivity. The imagination allows us to reflect on the invisible system of the unconscious, where we seek to bring back what once has been repressed.

In the discovery of attachment, value and desire, artist Michael Landy carries out an act of total annihilation of his 7,227 belongings. The performance titled ‘Breakdown’ (2001) records destruction of all his possessions in a public space of consumeristic value. At the end of the performance the artist doesn’t own nothing at all. For many people, the total destruction of personal mementoes, letters and photographs was deeply disturbing (Sooke, 2019). The unsettling act generates thought of ‘psychological elasticity of an image’. It brings hope for the ‘solidarity of memory and imagination’ to move others at unimaginable depth (Bachelard, 1964, p.6), at the same time emphasising the power of memorabilia and human desire to keep the notion of past conserved. Simultaneously, the artist is engaging a question around the materialism and consumerism of the world we live in, where our uncontrolled desire towards ownership becomes stronger. The performance deconstructs the concept of material value, bringing closer look to the process of liberation from social moralities and conflicts. The derealization of human needs and desires, makes me want to question the state of detachment. State in which nothingness becomes the celebration of freedom.

---

Bibliography

Art and Thingness - Part I, (2010) Source: https://www.e-flux.com/journal/13/61327/art-and-thingness-part-i-breton-s-ball-and-duchamp-scarrot/

Ged Merino, Transitional Objects, 2016 - Visual Artist. (n.d.), [sculpture], [online] Available at: https://www.gedmerino.com/gallery [Accessed 3 Nov. 2018].

Roberts, J. (1998). The Art of Interruption. Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press

Bachelard, G., (1964), The Poetics of Space, Canada: Beacon Press Boston

Sooke, A. (2019). The man who destroyed all his belongings. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160713-michael-landy-the-man-who-destroyed-all-his-belongings [Accessed 24 Jan. 2019].