3.3 The Voice of the Inanimate
I analyse how our need drives imaginative projections that metaphorically give inanimate glass objects a voice by making the objective, subjective. This process makes Romanticism relevant to our engagement with object, the material and the material’s technical processes.
The glasswork presents a matrix of potentials. This matrix of potentials is affordance.[1] Affordance is a theory developed by James Gibson in his book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. The theory addresses our relationship with inanimate objects. Gibson proposes that objects give substance to our existence, but exist independent of our attention. If we are drawn into relationship with an object it is through our own need and desire. Only then is that object in our thought and action.
A Place for Conversation
Ceramicist and teacher Jan Guy wants a bodily response to her work and provides triggers in her forms to evoke physical memory within the viewer. Other makers such as Annette Blair, Andrew Lavery and Lee Mathers, interpret the object as a vessel for memory.[2] This interpretation is possible because an object carries traces of time and place. Object can bring back a past experience by triggering our memories through association. In doing this we give the inanimate a voice, and the eloquence of that voice is the result of our projection – a result of our want, our desire. We engage in a feedback loop in which both object and subject evolve through a metaphoric conversation. This is a rational, objectified world. But, I am subjective and my survival depends on how I differentiate between the objects that are, or are not, of worth to me. I live in Gibson’s “meaningful environment”[3] – a meaningful environment that is intensified within the realm of the artwork because the artwork exists in “a supersaturated cultural environment”.[4] As Lorraine Daston writes in Things That Talk, “Like seeds around which an elaborate crystal can suddenly congeal, things in a supersaturated cultural solution can crystallise ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. These thickenings of significance are one way that things can be made to talk” [5].
The supersaturated realm of the artwork is a transitional area between the objective and the subjective.[6] This territory is where artistic sensibility gives voice to object, and object is heard through aesthetic response. The relevance of affordance theory lies in two transactions. The first relates to artistic sensibility and lies in the relationship between the material and the maker. The second relates to aesthetic response and lies in the relationship between object and its viewer.
Material and Affordance
Daniel Clayman spoke of wrestling the light out of the air and into a tangible object.[7] Clayman did use the term wrestling, and for the maker glass is a difficult material to work. As Julie Anne Denton wrote, “Glass is a medium that one will never get the better of, something that will have you asking questions about it until the day you die. This material will frustrate you, engage you, enrage you and show you the disposition of beauty” [8].
Glass offers resistance to the creative maker despite his or her developed talents.[9] That resistance can thwart the careless and frustrate the knowledgeable, but countering this resistance can force the maker into unpredicted outcomes.[10] It is not oxymoronic to talk of affording resistance. The materiality of glass affords resistance, and materiality is what the artist pushes against. This interaction generates creativity.
The Glass Object and Affordance
Movement, ambiguity and colour are sensual triggers. For collector Geoffrey Strutton they are emotive and seductive agents. He speaks of the colour blue, when combined with the translucence of glass, feeding his emotive memories of a landscape present and past.[11] Andy Plummer feels those same elements impart calmness to a domestic space through a Richard Whiteley piece that Plummer owns.[12] Art objects enter consciousness as participants in conversations that may be emotionally and conceptually expanding, as Ross Gibson implies: “If you (the person encountering them) are available to them, they are available for transformation. They are available to help this transformative event happen”[13].
In a rational world objects do not possess the attributes of the living that allow them to converse with us. Perhaps it is anthropomorphic to think of a material offering dialogue. It appears irrational to think we could create inanimate objects capable of communicating with us on a spiritual or a visceral level. However, conversing with the inanimate is not a new concept. Through transitivity humans invested life in paintings they created in the cave art of Lascaux. Humanity always invested the inanimate with life, and the inanimate duly respond with conversation, but only when engaged – only once they have our attention. The relationship makers have with their materials and with the object they make from it, and the relationship between viewers and the objects they view, are based in both resistance and acceptance, and these relationships turn the objective into the subjective. This subjectivity makes Romanticism relevant. As artists we push against the material of the outside world to learn of what it is that we ourselves are made. As the viewer we engage the object in order to feel an aesthetic response that could reveal to us something more about ourselves in this world.
[1] Gibson, The Ecological Approach,to Visual Perception, 127.
[2] Annette Blair, ‘Keith’, Ranamok catalogue, 10.
[3] Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 33.
[4] Daston, Things ThatTalk, 20.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 22.
[7] Dan Clayman, personal interview, 26/01/11, 6.
[8] Julie Anne Denton, ‘The Three Alchemical Principals: Sulfur, Salt and Mercury.’ The Glass Art Society Conference Journal, Pittsburgh: The Glass Art Society, 2007, 103.
[9] Moje, Dance of Colours floor talk. See personal interviews with Liz Coates, 6, 9, Mark Eliott 2, Judi Elliott, 5, Martin Beaver, 3.
[10] Shane Fero , personal interview, 29/03/09 5, Martin Beaver, personal interview, 4.
[11] Geoffrey Strutton, personal interview, 20/06/06, 1.
[12] Andy Plummer, personal interview, 27/04/09, 7.
[13] Ross Gibson, personal interview, 01/12/09, 5.
Return to contents page
I analyse how our need drives imaginative projections that metaphorically give inanimate glass objects a voice by making the objective, subjective. This process makes Romanticism relevant to our engagement with object, the material and the material’s technical processes.
The glasswork presents a matrix of potentials. This matrix of potentials is affordance.[1] Affordance is a theory developed by James Gibson in his book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. The theory addresses our relationship with inanimate objects. Gibson proposes that objects give substance to our existence, but exist independent of our attention. If we are drawn into relationship with an object it is through our own need and desire. Only then is that object in our thought and action.
A Place for Conversation
Ceramicist and teacher Jan Guy wants a bodily response to her work and provides triggers in her forms to evoke physical memory within the viewer. Other makers such as Annette Blair, Andrew Lavery and Lee Mathers, interpret the object as a vessel for memory.[2] This interpretation is possible because an object carries traces of time and place. Object can bring back a past experience by triggering our memories through association. In doing this we give the inanimate a voice, and the eloquence of that voice is the result of our projection – a result of our want, our desire. We engage in a feedback loop in which both object and subject evolve through a metaphoric conversation. This is a rational, objectified world. But, I am subjective and my survival depends on how I differentiate between the objects that are, or are not, of worth to me. I live in Gibson’s “meaningful environment”[3] – a meaningful environment that is intensified within the realm of the artwork because the artwork exists in “a supersaturated cultural environment”.[4] As Lorraine Daston writes in Things That Talk, “Like seeds around which an elaborate crystal can suddenly congeal, things in a supersaturated cultural solution can crystallise ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. These thickenings of significance are one way that things can be made to talk” [5].
The supersaturated realm of the artwork is a transitional area between the objective and the subjective.[6] This territory is where artistic sensibility gives voice to object, and object is heard through aesthetic response. The relevance of affordance theory lies in two transactions. The first relates to artistic sensibility and lies in the relationship between the material and the maker. The second relates to aesthetic response and lies in the relationship between object and its viewer.
Material and Affordance
Daniel Clayman spoke of wrestling the light out of the air and into a tangible object.[7] Clayman did use the term wrestling, and for the maker glass is a difficult material to work. As Julie Anne Denton wrote, “Glass is a medium that one will never get the better of, something that will have you asking questions about it until the day you die. This material will frustrate you, engage you, enrage you and show you the disposition of beauty” [8].
Glass offers resistance to the creative maker despite his or her developed talents.[9] That resistance can thwart the careless and frustrate the knowledgeable, but countering this resistance can force the maker into unpredicted outcomes.[10] It is not oxymoronic to talk of affording resistance. The materiality of glass affords resistance, and materiality is what the artist pushes against. This interaction generates creativity.
The Glass Object and Affordance
Movement, ambiguity and colour are sensual triggers. For collector Geoffrey Strutton they are emotive and seductive agents. He speaks of the colour blue, when combined with the translucence of glass, feeding his emotive memories of a landscape present and past.[11] Andy Plummer feels those same elements impart calmness to a domestic space through a Richard Whiteley piece that Plummer owns.[12] Art objects enter consciousness as participants in conversations that may be emotionally and conceptually expanding, as Ross Gibson implies: “If you (the person encountering them) are available to them, they are available for transformation. They are available to help this transformative event happen”[13].
In a rational world objects do not possess the attributes of the living that allow them to converse with us. Perhaps it is anthropomorphic to think of a material offering dialogue. It appears irrational to think we could create inanimate objects capable of communicating with us on a spiritual or a visceral level. However, conversing with the inanimate is not a new concept. Through transitivity humans invested life in paintings they created in the cave art of Lascaux. Humanity always invested the inanimate with life, and the inanimate duly respond with conversation, but only when engaged – only once they have our attention. The relationship makers have with their materials and with the object they make from it, and the relationship between viewers and the objects they view, are based in both resistance and acceptance, and these relationships turn the objective into the subjective. This subjectivity makes Romanticism relevant. As artists we push against the material of the outside world to learn of what it is that we ourselves are made. As the viewer we engage the object in order to feel an aesthetic response that could reveal to us something more about ourselves in this world.
[1] Gibson, The Ecological Approach,to Visual Perception, 127.
[2] Annette Blair, ‘Keith’, Ranamok catalogue, 10.
[3] Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 33.
[4] Daston, Things ThatTalk, 20.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 22.
[7] Dan Clayman, personal interview, 26/01/11, 6.
[8] Julie Anne Denton, ‘The Three Alchemical Principals: Sulfur, Salt and Mercury.’ The Glass Art Society Conference Journal, Pittsburgh: The Glass Art Society, 2007, 103.
[9] Moje, Dance of Colours floor talk. See personal interviews with Liz Coates, 6, 9, Mark Eliott 2, Judi Elliott, 5, Martin Beaver, 3.
[10] Shane Fero , personal interview, 29/03/09 5, Martin Beaver, personal interview, 4.
[11] Geoffrey Strutton, personal interview, 20/06/06, 1.
[12] Andy Plummer, personal interview, 27/04/09, 7.
[13] Ross Gibson, personal interview, 01/12/09, 5.
Return to contents page