OUGD601: Tim Dant- Material Culture in the Social World

Quotes

Consumption is a key feature of late modernity [Dant, 1999]

Anthropologists have shown a link between the process of consumption and symbolic meaning (Dant, p22). Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood (1996 [1979]) also relate the social value of goods to symbolic meanings, however, differing from traditionalist Marxist, they argue that consumption is more than an economic process and involves more than the production and purchase of goods in a market place (Dant, p23).

Commodity fetishism is questioned very nicely as Baudrillard as ‘the notion of false consciousness devoted to the worship of exchange value; or more recently the fetishism of gadgets and objects, in which individuals are supposed to worship artificial libidinal or prestige values incorporated to the object?’ (Baudrillard, 1981: 89). - It is Baudrillard who begins stating fetishism as a sign of social value, with underlying signifiers aligning the unreal with identity attributes, which aids in giving them symbolic meaning and mediating value through social culture.

Classical art has always involved figurative representation of the body and other figures, making the real human form distinctive and, if utilising other means (eg sculpture), adjust human representation accordingly. The surface of many sculptures, often cold, hard and smooth does not have a colour nor texture which represents that of human skin (Dant, 1999: 184).

Thoughts

In Material Culture in The Social World, Dant discusses how the practice of living with objects can contribute to character, social life and societal values, interesting to consider when attempting to market brands. Lunt and Livingstone (1992: 115) point out that goods are acquired according to peoples personal and social requirements that are connected to their stage in life (Dant, 30) where as Marx classes objects in political and social life as commodities, which can be broken down into capitalist class status.

It is interesting to consider that as a whole, the UK turned in 2016 from a manufacturing based economy to serviced based, suggesting that the monotonous jobs which are increasingly available require some form of escapism to make them tolerable.

Veblen has a theory of conspicuous consumption in the leisure class (Veblen 1953 [1899]), suggesting that this fuels a consumerist society fuelled with excess and waste. Lunt and Livingstone (1992: 115) point out that goods are acquired according to peoples personal and social requirements that are connected to their stage in life (Dant, 30). Often, the fashion images which can be the most alluring in terms of utopia reflect Veblen’s idea of a leisure class, which can be categorised as displaying their status through non-useful activities, nor are they serving any function in human well being or growth. (Veblen 1953: 78/79). Dant argues that Veblen’s theories do have a place in contemporary culture, yet it has come away from the elite class which was most prominent in the early 20^th century, as the ability to spend money on leisure and entertainment has grown as a whole.

Goods provide a clear and recognisable social structure and symbolic meaning, enhanced by the advertising and marketing consistent throughout modern history.  Arjun Appadurai (1986) suggests that commodities have social lives, things may be inert and lifeless but, to understand the way that they gain and lose value, we need to think of them as if they had a life. Objects are not necessarily born with commodity status, however the brand which is releasing said product, if carrying social status of it’s own may naturally inject their brand authority into the goods being created, which ultimately make the objects extension of the brand. Furthermore, types of objects have a cultural history and others have biography so their value may lie in a niche target audience, rather than being prolifically symbolic throughout all of society. Vogue utilise these niches when creating some editorial content, utilising only designer pieces a few may know or understand the symbolic meaning, which sets their magazine away from others on the news stand. The Vogue reader goes directly to their pages as it is often the niche which can fuel desire, however it can also isolate the masses by using too many of these visual semiotics.

Appadurai focuses his attention to luxury goods, which he classes as ‘incarnated signs’ , who’s ‘principal use is rhetorical and social’ (Appadurai, 1986: 38). He suggests that these goods in particular carry two types of knowledge. First, he argues, modernity needs to be a factor. By the product utilising technological, aesthetical cultural knowledge through production, marketing and advertising the audience becomes aware that this is ‘fresh’ and ‘cutting edge’, often allowing a higher price to be charged because of this. Secondly, a different kind of knowledge is needed to consume it appropriately, to know what the commodity is good for (Dant, 24). These two systems of knowledge are argued as equally important, yet not necessarily equally weighted in value.

Stemming from Marxist theory, the idea of consumption is routed to the idea of wants vs needs- the excess some of society, such as the Veblen’s leisure class, is hard to categorise as needs are subjective from one person to the next, and hard to class is simply just food, water and shelter anymore. In an increasingly technological age, commodity needs may even extend to internet access , as well as social relations (friends) and means of entertainment (television, music etc).

Gronow describes the strange phenomenon of ‘democratic luxury’ (Dant, 26/ Gronow, 1997: 49) which is partly the state we are living in today in the western world. In the Soviet Union where Gronow draws his reference, he mentions how state planning and distribution of certain goods were accessible to all, and so it was the desire for foreign goods which continued to fuel the social needs and desires of those with adequate access to aspects of luxury, whether democratic or elitist.  

‘Strictly speaking, the humans of affluence are surrounded not so much by other human beings, as they were in previous ages, but by objects’ (Baudrillard 1998: 25) – When considering the technological age we live in, these objects can be broken down yet again into objects many different categories – some which serve a function of basic primal needs (warm clothing, shelter, food) and now the entertainment category can not be overlooked. Modern society have had access to the radio since ______ and television since _______, magazines and books pre-date these advancements in entertainment, yet my point is that we will never leave them behind. The age of the iPhone means we access entertainment not only through human interaction, but via the objects in our possession, suggesting that the content produced for utopic means (Tim Walker photography etc.) has got a purpose, and always had a purpose, to utilise objects (the magazine, photobook or smart phone), and project entertainment through them.

Baudrillard offers a mythology of late modernity, stating that advertisements and editorials have become ironic, self-parodying and self-knowing, and by this even the most individualistic of consumer can become wrapped up in social discourse and false needs (Dent, p28)

Mike Featherstone also points out the twentieth century art movements which incorporated commodity and consumer culture into art, (Warhol being one example), to the treating of lifestyles as a form of art (fashion photography ofen representing the excessive elitist); finally, the massive increase in the flow of signs and images (Featherstone, 1991: 66-7), meaning the contents of everyday life take on aesthetic significance.

Simmel and Benjamin note how the urban landscape has been aestheticized and enchanted through the architecture, billboards, shop displays, advertisements, packages, street signs etc., (Featherstone 1991: 76)  which, when photographed (frozen in time through the camera) could be a defining factor in how we understand the past historically and visually gage/represent the times.

According to Dant, for Marx, Freud and Baudrillard fetishism is a way to critique the over-valuation and symbolic societal meaning of goods, compared to their real value, inanimate objects (Dant, 1999: 40). However, Dant himself argues that often fetishism is not based on the notion of realism, but is a tool used to equate the social value of things culturally, with identifiable properties and characteristics with them. The history into the concept of fetishism has been used to identify a misunderstanding of goods, objects, or even people to suggest inherent value or powers into a subject. ‘By treating these fetishes as ‘unreal’ overlooks the importance of the object as a mediator of social value’ (Dant, 1999: 41).

James Gibson (1979: 272) says that a ‘picture’ is not a representation of reality but a record in two dimensions of ‘invariants of sculpture’, the forms and shapes presented to vision.  Gibson is saying that the primary use for photography is to “record” (Dant, 1999: 155), overlooking any possibility to introduce art with the medium.

Artwork is to give the viewer a sense of displacement...Being ‘moved’ is often a term to reflect our emotions, however in the case of some artwork, fashion photography and advertising in peculiar, often you are moved physically to the point of view of the creator, and creating a co-presence between creator and viewer, giving the audience a sense of being ‘here’ and ‘there’- flitting through historical times and essentially being omnipresent. (Dent, 1999: 155). It is also argued by Dent that visual artwork and communication in this way is also broken down into two key attributes- one to do with the representation of the form of the visual world, the other is ‘to do with emotion and the evocation of human presence’. (Dent, 1999: 155).