The third of
Ten things in my class on science, technology and design -
[link]
The story of an ancient Corinthian perfume jar takes us from cutting edge ceramic technology to cemeteries and temples in the first city states of the Mediterranean through redefinitions of what it was to be a hero in the European bronze age.
Artifacts can be seen as "black boxes" - bundles of connections that are hidden by the apparently simple coherence of being a "thing" - they are packed away in a box normally kept closed - hence a "black" box.
Open the black box - and follow the connections - see what is being linked!
To start the unpacking process you might ask - "what work does the artifact do?" - "what is it connecting?" - and, to get this going, you might ask "what work would I have to do if I didn't have such an artifact?"
(So "what is a thing?" - it is a "gathering" of relationships).
Key points also
- "branding" is a concept we can use to understand an artifact like this - again a challenge to our notion that modernity is radically different to antiquity;
- risk versus consistency/certainty/tradition (here in relation to ceramic manufacture) is a key contrast in understanding contemporary business and design.
Readings and Resources
Art and an Archaeology of Embodiment.pdf
Corinth02.mov
Some comments:
Posted at May 03/2005 08:30 PM:
Jamie Brownell:
Function of the jar - style
- Distinction of a certain style
- Here the issue of branding arises. It functions to make something distinctive; symbolizes or communicates for something else. They went to extraordinary lengths to make the jars distinctive (branding) and to make sure no one else could replicate it
- See Risk--a more risky manufacturing process heightened the craft and added to branding
Manufacture - use
- The material used and the preparation of the jar was important - needed to efficiently prepare the special clay to make it thin-walled
Risk
- Making the jar was built around a risky manufacturing technique; process of making through differential risk
- In Corinth they went from secure to more risky manufacturing process
Posted at May 04/2005 02:58 PM:
Brooksie Riley: What I found striking about our discussion of the Greek Perfume jar, was the idea that a single jar or style of pottery could communicate so many things not only within the populations of its immediate surrounding, but into other parts of the Mediterranean. Because of this universal value I believe that we can see not only the ability of the jar to communicate social distinction but also in the ability for the complex greek culture to recognize social distinctions based on material posession.
Posted at May 04/2005 09:49 PM:
[Karen Loh]: Professor Shanks propounded the idea that "ornament is crime" for the minimalist bauhaus style. From personal observation, I find it interesting how ornament is indeed "crime" if the object that is being ornamented is mass produced, but valued if it is hand-crafted. Nowadays, we go to IKEA or Target and for instance buy basic kitchenware of "understated elegance", however, we would not buy an equally simple-looking vase or pot if we were in a potter's workshop for example. We would appreciate so much more the design the artist personally drew on the pot. We value so much more the extra human touch but are turned off by the tackiness of mass produced designs that imitate the handmade quality often unsuccessfully. Successful, high quality mass produced things often turn into expensive brand names.
Posted at May 05/2005 12:40 AM:
Ashley Rayner: I really liked the idea of branding that the perfume jar brought up. It's amazing how much can be conveyed through a simple artifact, from the type of people who were supposed to use it (audience) to the type of lifestyle it was supposed to convey. This also ties into the discussion of the Wedgewood china tea pot, or a tangent we had on Coca-Cola. Just saying those names creates an image for most people. However, nowadays we have the benefit of mass media to spread our brands around. The perfume jars meant something to people without Internet ads.
Posted at May 05/2005 10:07 AM:
Jessica Kuo: I found our brief discussions on branding were very interesting. Companies spend millions of dollars to create brands, part of which is spent on sponsorships. For athletic brands such as Nike, it makes sense that companies use top athletes like Tiger Woods, Andre Agassi. Yet the reach of such athletes has extended past the obvious athletic companies. Now, financial companies (American Express), consulting companies (Accenture), car companies (Buick), and others (Canon) have utilized these top athletes to promote their bands, capitalizing on their image of high performance, winning, endurance, focus, etc. I still find it very amusing when watching golf tournaments on television, a significant portion of the advertisements are of top golfers endorsing non golf products/services by making an amazing drive or putt as if there is a close correlation between the performance of one and the other. I still find it very amusing when watching golf tournaments on television, a significant portion of the advertisements are of top golfers endorsing non golf products/services by making an amazing drive or putt as if there is a close correlation between the performance of one and the other.
'Posted at Feb 05/2006 06:08PM:''
[Kate Youngman]: Choosing to do things the hard way is a very curious phenomenon, especially in the cultural context of today’s instant coffee, instant messenger, and instant—well, okay eight-minute—abs. But is it really this context that underscores the atypicality of this choice? Or is it a quality inherent in humanity, a biological preference for efficiency? Might we defy this human inclination as an act of rebellion, in order to demonstrate our independence, free will, and potential power, or do we ever actually defy it at all? We examined the Ancient Corinthian pottery techniques that seem to so exemplify doing things the hard way, and we justified the Corinthians’ motivations as efforts to display power and skill and cultivate their desired brand or image. So we can argue that physical labor can be a short-cut to cultural recognition and prestige, and thereby still efficient in terms of reducing the necessary travel, battle, or foreign relations upkeep. But what is left unanswered is how much we have changed since the Corinthians started making these pots, or even before then. The progress of technology in human society has aimed both high and low—people build up with skyscrapers (or Pyramids) and down with iPod nanos and flat-screen TV’s—but whether the creation is big or small, we like to judge it based on how much ground it can cover. How big is the floor plan; how far can your cell phone roam. But as we tend toward the smaller and more portable, we seem to be returning to our nomadic instincts. We still follow our resources—as in the “Can you hear me now?” commercial, we climb to rooftops and lean out windows for cell phone reception. We don’t want to be inconvenienced by carrying heavy or sizable equipment, but we want to feel at home everywhere we go. So instead of putting in roots and fencing ourselves in with farms and cities, we bridge the distance between ourselves and our satellite towers with, well, more satellite towers. As we find more and more ways to be everywhere seen and heard, blend more and more with the products that everywhere display and announce our presence. Maybe we sometimes take the hard way in order to distinguish ourselves from what we do, to clarify our role as cognizant participant instead of inanimate instrument. Or maybe it’s still efficiency driven after-all—a form of soul-searching while we work.
