Meaning manufacture, old and new
By
In the old days, most of the meanings of our objects came prefab. This is what brands did for us. Brands, and the advertisers, planners, researchers and marketers who made them. Inevitably we would add meanings to our possessions. We might finesse the ones we found there. But mostly, anyone with the same objects had the same meanings. Thus did our material culture make our culture material.
We have since seen the rise of custom-made meanings. This is one of the reasons we like antique fairs, and farmer’s markets is that these objects have been stripped of their original meanings and taken on new, historical, ones. What used to be someone’s tea cup is now our Victorian teacup.
It’s the reason we like the tourist trinkets we bring back from vacation. These were likely hand made somewhere. That textile just says Mexico. More than that, it says, "our vacation in Mexico."
It’s also the reason we like artisanal goods, the chocolates, beer and bread that is so popular now. There are no brands here. These products take their meaning mostly from the process of hand crafting and the person who made them. These objects come with stories more than meanings and we like to tell these stories. "Well, Frank, that’s the guy who made these chocolates, he’s got that little shop down on Cambie, Frank used to be a professional football player. No, I am not kidding."
Of course this sort of thing has always been true of high end restaurants. This has always been hand crafted, unbranded (at least in so far as national brands are concerned), and meanings that come with this food are all about this very particular restaurant, chef, owner, designer, etc. Here the brand is a man or a women.
The rich like to live in a relatively unbranded world. Kitchens, furniture, bespoke tailoring, all of this is completely custom made. It’s fun to go due north on Madison, I think it is. In mid town, we are looking at branded stores, but as we hit the the upper east side, the brands fall away. Now all the shops are little and very particular. This is no brand land.
Experiments like Etsy give us a glimpse of a democratized version of this world. Now, the rest of us can own customized stuff. No brands. No manufacture in the industrial sense. What we buy from Etsy.com is unique and if its to mean something, it will be because we have invested it with meanings particular to our own lives and sensibilities.
So I was interested to note the website called Significant Objects. (Thanks to Leora Kornfeld for the head’s up.) This was invented by Joshua Glenn, Matthew Battles, Rob Walker and others in the summer of 2009. Here’s how they describe what they do. (Sorry to be vague about the founders of Significant Objects but they appear to take pains to efface their identities on the SO website. I can’t but wonder whether they are waiting for authors to supply identities for them…or at least names. Excellent strategy.)
Significant Objects has three steps:
1. The experiment’s curators purchase objects — for no more than a few dollars — from thrift stores and garage sales.
2. A participating writer is paired with an object. He or she then writes a fictional story, in any style or voice, about the object. Voila! An unremarkable, castoff thingamajig has suddenly become a “significant” object!
3. Each significant object is listed for sale on eBay. The s.o. is pictured, but instead of a factual description the s.o.’s newly written fictional story is used. However, care is taken to avoid the impression that the story is a true one; the intent of the project is not to hoax eBay customers. (Doing so would void our test.) The author’s byline will appear with his or her story.
The first version of Significant objects can be defined still more particularly:
Significant Objects was originally intended as an experiment exploring the relationship between narrative and value. (In fact, we didn’t think many writers would want to participate — before we launched the experiment, we listed 100 writers we knew or just admired and asked ourselves, “How do we convince/cajole/trick/browbeat these talented people into helping us with no guarantee that they’ll get anything out of it whatsoever?”) Our goal, then as now, was not simply to generate content, or to provide writers with a fun creative exercise, but instead to pair our carefully curated objects with stories that we’d curated every bit as carefully. We want the site to offer a consistently great reading experience — and we put a lot of effort into that.
The relationship between narrative and value. How very interesting. Economics is not very good on this relationship. Indeed the idea that stories can create value is a little mystifying. And this would be a good time to come to terms with this, because as I say, it is the coming thing.
I fell to thinking about a variation of the SO theme. As it stands, in what remains of the old world of marketing, a watch comes charged with some standard meanings, crafted by the CMO, the brand, agency and its creatives. Take for instance the Rolex that uses the Bond movie franchise to give the watch a certain quality of romance, danger, adventure, etc.
A SO approach would craft the meaning of the objects more particularly. The brand could engage a team of writers and have them standing by to deliver stories to the owner, perhaps on a just in time basis. What I am a buying the watch then is also a stream of stories that might come to me every day or week or month. Tomorrow, I might get an email that reads
Today your watch is owned by a functionary, a man who lives in Ottawa and works for the Canadian government. You have a secret. You have embezzled $3 million from the Canadian government. Today is actually is your last day. You wouldn’t be here, but the embezzlement will finalize today. You are nervous. Actually you’re sweating bullets. Make it through today, and you can spend the rest of your life in some sunny country that laughs in the face of the Canadian extradition. But you can’t help feeling that suspicions are flourishing. You know people are looking at you. Aren’t they? Every glance, every comment today will be charged with menace. Have a nice day.
This is narrative and I believe our Rolex is more valuable for it. As these stories change, as we enter the narratives that come with the watch, the watch becomes more and more valuable. It serves as a portal on alternative realities and multiple selves.
References
See the Significant Objects website here.
See the Smoking Man Figurine complete with a very interesting story by Vicente Lozano here.













12 Comments
January 28th, 2010 at 12:12 am
This reminds me of the novel Broken for You by Stephanie Kallos. The book is lovely, and I don’t want to give away the twists and turns of the plot here. But in the book, objects are given a story, then they are broken, and then they are put together to create something else with an entirely different meaning.
Is there more significance to giving objects meaning? Does it become part of the ritual of obtaining and keeping objects in a significant way? Is it true for everyone, or just for a subset of the population?
January 28th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Rob Walker of the NYT Magazine “Consumed” column and the book Buying In is also involved with the SO project. Top left of his Murketing blog promoted it.
http://www.murketing.com/journal/
January 28th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Something from across the pond which resonates with this post, but doesn’t have ‘manufacture’ as it’s central tenet is the BBC’s new cross-platform project ‘A History of the World in 100 objects’. It’s centred on a radio show, has a site here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/explorerflash/#/object_Hvi54RDiQym6Pgd3_IsRKA where peop[le are asked to upload their own thoughts on objects that have a history for them (if you look on YouTube you’ll find some great video promotional slots too).
I think the narrative/value relationship around the objects is similar to those in the S.O. experiment. Certainly for instance, the value attached to a 400 year old quill is increased greatly when the ‘historical fact’ that it was Shakepseare’s becomes known. The difference between these objects and those in the S.O. experiement is apparent in that the stories attached to these objects are ‘historical fact’ rather than created fictions. All that means though, is that the type of narrative is different, not the realtionship between object/value/narrative nor the amount value that is lent to the objects.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:36 am
all objects have a narrative ascribed by the viewer/user. The interesting thing is how the broadly popular assigned value pendulum swings from authenticity (romantized naturalism individuality) between mass production (efficiency modernity science). 18th and 19th century artistic tastes reflected this in the shifts from urban industrial “progress” to a desire for a romanticized naturalism. Authenticity and naturalism will be in favor for some time.
many rapidly urbanized/modernized cultures, stop and some point and harken back to the earlier “simpler” times etc. romanticizing the past and festishisizing (sic) the future (50’s example). make for interesting times.
Rococco art for example is a great example of romanticization of nature etc. ironically in doing so, it reflected a heightened period of percieved development and was a back handed complement to progress, in that progress had provided a comfortable vantage point with which to look back.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:25 am
i was recently thinking about this very subject while at the met museum this past weekend. we were looking through an exhibit of european turn of the century “artifacts” – objects like fireplace covers, ashtrays, tea pots, serving utensils. it occurred to me that all of these objects were made by hand, individually, with a story behind it, no matter how simple. it made me never want to acquire a mass-produced item again. compared to these trinkets, items at crate & barrel seemed without soul.
people want to feel an attachment to their things. i’d certainly prefer telling a story about a particular piece of jewelry, that is more meaningful than ‘i found it at loehmans.’ etsy is wildly popular for that reason. people want one of a kind ‘things’ that tell a story. perhaps it’s our way of convincing ourselves we’re not as materialistic as we really are.
January 28th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by karl long, Grant McCracken, Colectivo Planner, 3kwa, Esther and others. Esther said: RT @Grant27: Blog post: Meaning manufacture, old and new http://cultureby.com/2010/01/meaning-manufacture-old-and-new.html [...]
January 29th, 2010 at 12:17 am
I love, love, love SO’s idea! It’s great.
I do believe all objects have a narrative, even the mass-produced crate & barrel ones Nadia mentioned. And, no, their narrative is not poetic and hand-hewed; it’s not the stuff of heirlooms, but everything has meaning, and inside the meaning, there has to be a story.
I know those products (mass-produced products) have a malaise (of the soul); I see it and I do agree. But mass products have a different function to fulfill than artisanal products. They don’t come with much romance, but they do let people create their own domestic stories. The Citroen DS19 was mass-produced; it’s one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen and has so many stories. Okay, that was unfair. True, you can’t compare the DS19 to a $7.99 pasta bowl at Crate & Barrel.
Anyway.
I have a theory why we crave small run products and narrative and story in our objects and food and our clothes: it’s because we don’t make things ourselves anymore and so, we are disconnected from the sentience of ‘making’. And this prevents us from developing a relationship with our stuff. Maybe we miss the feelings and sensations of the personal narrative, which comes from being hands on. Maybe this is why we crave the stories of others.
January 29th, 2010 at 8:45 am
[...] Thinking about the relationship between narrative and value.Close [...]
January 29th, 2010 at 10:11 am
The provenance of things rears its head again. What I find interesting is that provenance can extend in some ways to the mass produced. Take a Barcelona Chair, or an Eames lounger. Though mass produced the sense of how these were designed and the story of those that designed them somehow lend an heir of connection with the thing. Mies van Der Rohe didn’t actually have to sit in it to imbue it for people to imbue it with intrinsic value. It’s as though the story of the maker is as important as the story of the object. The same could be said for the artisinal food movement in some ways.
January 30th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
[...] follower of fashion; thought-provoking piece by grant mccracken on the relationship between narrative & value; not much else other usual blog roll, been a lowsy reader this [...]
February 12th, 2010 at 10:40 am
As others noted, there is some relationship, some set of meanings, between people and objects, and the objects’ provenance (e.g., artisanal vs. mass-produced) doesn’t avoid that.
Somewhat oddly, this post winds up where it begins: with the idea that the set of meanings should be driven by an object’s producer. Meaning, we are told, in the old days was handed down from on high by the object’s marketers and others. And the post looks towards a new day where an object’s meaning can be handed down from on high by the object’s marketers and others–but perhaps this time, in a more individualized way. That is, the post says, let’s stick with the comfortable status quo. It used to work and it still works.
Why not consider changing the relationship and ways to engage people to create their own stories about an object’s meaning? This recasts the consumer as creator and cedes control from all those marketers–but can build strong connections between the person and the object. It’s about as personal as it’s possible to get.
Relative consumption of mass-produced or artisanal goods is not necessarily a good indicator of whether one is leading the sort of individualized life implied here, in part because it avoids the question of the specific person. It matters what that person does with those goods, who they do it with, what they’re thinking about while they do it. We may equate status or wealth with things that are rarer or less mass-produced, but that’s really a separate issue.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:32 am
[...] examples, see this comment on BoingBoing (and this reply to it), this Chicago Tribune article, this assessment by Grant McCrackin’, this essay by Robin Sloan (who later wrote a story for us) this writeup [...]