(reworked) The study of possible interpretations of the "Difference"

The study of possible interpretations of the "Difference" on the example of the work of Fred Wilson "Mining the Museum"

«Нет различий, кроме различия в степени между различными степенями и отсутствием различия. То есть, если перевести это на хороший язык: Кто же сейчас не пьет?» (В. Ерофеев, 2001, с. 108)

“There are no differences, except for differences in degrees between different degrees and the absence of differences. That is if you translate it into a good language: Who doesn’t drink nowadays?” (V. Erofeev, 2001, p. 108, translated from Russian)

The Russian writer translates the understanding of the difference into the everyday philosophical plane. Living life in an everyday routine, we may not notice important events happening around us and affecting our perception. For example, while visiting the museum, the presented exhibits form our impression and we are not always conscious of this. But thanks to such works as the works of Fred Wilson, we become aware of this problem. The work “Mining the Museum” represents the difference not only in external comparison but also in the perception of people, in the context of objects and at the border of comparison of these two objects. To this end, what are the possible interpretations in terms of difference that exist in Fred Wilson's "Mining the Museum"?

Wilson, Fred 1992-1993, Maryland Historical Society Exhibition. Installation view of Mining the Museum: (Metalwork 1793-1880). [Installation] At: https://www.mdhs.org/digitalimage/installation-view-metalwork (Accessed 27.01.2020)

The installation “Metalwork 1793–1880” was another way that Wilson reshuffled the museum’s collection to highlight the history of African Americans. The installation juxtaposed ornate silver pitchers, flacons, and teacups with a pair of iron slave shackles. Traditionally, the display of arts and craft is kept separate from the display of traumatic artifacts such as slave shackles. By displaying these artifacts side by side, Wilson created an atmosphere of unease and made apparent the link between the two kinds of metal works: The production of the one was made possible by the subjugation enforced by the other. (Ginsberg, 1993, online).

I Basic difference

The museum at the Maryland Historical Society was founded in 1844. Following the name, the historical museum accumulates all the important artefacts, works of art and other items related to the history of the state. In the rooms of this museum represented an exquisite silver-plated service with glasses, cups, jugs.

What is it?

The first evaluation of the subject in the museum takes place on a purely technical level. Compare individual items. Where is the difference, not taking into account the external pattern, of one wineglass from the museum from another wineglass for example from eBay? Both are made of metal, and even on eBay it is pure silver (which should be more valuable), and in the museum only silver-plated metal. The use of the objects is supposed to be the same. One colour (- oh, you have a different colour? - So we have a different vision of it...). The volumes are the same ... But two objects are as identical in appearance as they are different in meaning. And a simple comparison of things much more complicated than it seems at first glance. Even by the simple principle that one item is exhibited in a museum and the other on a sales website.

eBay At: https://www.ebay.com/itm/GORGEOUS-MANCHESTER-SOUTHERN-ROSE-REPOUSSE-STERLING-SILVER-TEA-SET-WITH-7-PCS-/222861191655 (Accessed 27.01.2020)

The presentation of the outwardly identical object in different places speaks of the assigned semantic load to these objects. Here the difference can be defined as something conditional - a “social agreement” by the society that one object is considered important for recognizing it as endowed with a historical context, that is, placed in a museum, and the other only its copy.

Significantly, Deleuze criticizes the comparison on a representative basis and points out that the work does not begin with solving the problem, but with the formulation, the formation of this problem. It is not the idea of the difference that must be sought in metaphysics, because something embodying the absolute creates a line of differences. Deleuze notes that such a line of differences varies in quantity and quality. The differences are always single-plane and that there is no difference in quality from quantity. And if there are no such differences, then it is impossible to measure with qualitative and quantitative principles.

In this way, the difference is more than just a common comparison of two exponents – one with and another without shackles. Does it mean that we shall find the difference between silver pitchers, flacons, and teacups and a slave shackles? Probably if we would enter one more element. Something appears that is the common nature of these objects and that is work on metal . The production of the one was made possible by the subjugation enforced by the other. (Ginsberg, 1993, online). Hereby we find the difference via the third element which opened for us the way for comparison.

II People

First, a viewer examines silver-plated pitchers, flacons, and teacups. Royal families or elite used such items in many European countries. They were exquisite, valuable and decorative therefore with the time these objects became a part of Museum collections. Thereby a spectator will see this household tea service with regards to this prior experience. Being a native of Europe and being not aware of the history of art, probably one has a completely different understanding of culture and history of America.

Whereas, Fred Wilson “African, Native American, European and Amerindian descent” (Wilson, Wikipedia) endowed with experience of African-American born in Bronx, New York. He is aware of the slavery and oppression of the black-skinned people in America.

Second, museum workers formed a certain exposition, according to their convictions, views, and stereotypes and so on. In other words, the museum employees compiled this exhibit in such a way as to present to a visitor, the best bohemian component of the history of America of the 19th century. Bernard Newman, in his essay 'The First Man Was an Artist', already mentioned such an approach when the human brain atrophied under the guise of knowledge and filled with false goals and objectives.

“In the last sixty years, we have seen mushroom a vast cloud of 'sciences' in the fields of culture, history, philosophy, psychology, economics, politics, aesthetics, in an ambitious attempt to claim the non-material world.” (Newman, 2003 p.575)

Yes, the museum staff in Maryland presented what seemed right to them and hid something that could go against the accepted norms and principles. Cruel oppression on a racial basis was neglected in the presentation of the museum, but the chic and brilliance of the white class were put on display.

Moreover, there are completely different approaches to “seeing” things. Hegel would explain this with our identities, as well as gender, race, cultural and historical differences. In our perception, the same subject and concept of it are seen as completely different.

Having said that, we rather need to learn how to see this difference in us and how our point of view shapes reality. So to say, it will not be an answer like yes or no, good or bad, but there will be the way, logic, idea of thinking in a context of everything. Gregory Bateson in “Steps to an Ecology of Mind” named this learning process as steps. “You ask me how I tell the difference between a sacrament and a metaphor. But my answer must deal with the person and not the message.” (Bateson, 1972:46)

A person, with his vision of the world, located in a social context, can be manipulated by conscientious museum staff or politicians, teachers, artists and, it is in his hands, to realize the need to think and perceive differently.

Persuasive, that the aspect we must take into account when exploring possible interpretations of the Differences in the work of art, is that employees of the museum, artists and the viewer perceive information differently which as a result build the reality around us.

III Context

Fred Wilson saw the one-side exposition in the proposed version, so he offered a different side.

What has changed in the object now?

It seems to be the same exquisite items, but with a pile of rough metal in the middle.

For a man, who is involved or not in the subject of oppression of African-Americans and understanding class discrimination, in both cases, this exhibit acquires a completely different meaning. Obvious, the duality of perception of the world, the dominant white estate and enslaved African-Americans. Historical reality fell into place and now, in the new exhibition, the significance of this period is perceived more acutely.

Importantly, the context of the environment in which the object is located. Indeed, if you imagine the shackles of a slave exposed together with the same kind of objects, then nothing will hinder our brain from “reading” these exhibits as instruments of enslavement - an image of oppression. Our reading of the same subject will be different if the shackles are placed now together with filigree processed silver-plated metal tea service.

The contradictions of the service items and the shackles begin to interact with each other. By associative thinking, we imagine people using these items. Here, the created image is not just an image of oppression, but these are already the people behind this image, their actions. This is the image of the difference of classes, the prevalence of one group over another.

Above all, it seems pertinent to remember that context makes the difference.

IV Time

It is interesting to note the significance of the passage of time in the interpretation of the same exhibit. According to the logic of the flow of time, every second differs from the previous one. So, if we are going through the exhibit - this is a process. If we return to the museum in a week, it will be a completely different story compared to what we saw for the first time. The social environment can change, a new mass idea can appear and so on. In terms of finding the difference, we would need to compare than circumstances and how our attitude changed regarding the same work.

V Dialectic

Assume that museum workers initially exhibited the tea service with the chains of a slave, how will reality changes? And so that there is nothing to compare and there will be no new art object. After all, the essence of the work of Fred Wilson is a contrast. “Likewise, differentiatedness is instead the limit of the thing at stake. It is where the thing which is at stake ceases, or it is what that thing is not.” (Hegel, 2018:5) The viewer compares the work of the artist (this is the tea service with shackles) with the service without shackles. On the border of this comparison, the difference is coming across.

The interpretation of the last showpiece changes only because we know about the existence of a different version. Now we can compare the two silver-plated tea services. The dialectic consisted of the tea service without shackles and the set of service with shackles opposed to it. And as synthesis, a new meaning was born.

VI

According to Deleuze, we perceive the difference in a traditional, familiar way because it is easier for us. But nothing new can happen in such a perception since everything is known and is repeated again. But if we rethink through creative activity, then we will leave this circle of common repetition and create something new based on the previous object or event. (Deleuze, 1994:6) Fred Wilson through the creative creation process has revised the museum's exhibit approach. Now, through a seemingly familiar subject, and interpretation of its differences, Wilson repeated the story but created a new precedent.

Summing up the search for possible interpretations of the "Difference" on the example of the work of Fred Wilson, we can note the difference in everyday form; the difference in perception of people; the difference in the context of things and events, as well as the difference in opposition. Thus, if rhetorically we see drinking as a state of avoiding norms and abstracting from reality (quoted by V. Erofeev) or a search of new, then the repetition creatively created in such a pure state will differ with new interpretations.

Bibliography and references

1. Foster Hal (Autumn, 1985) The "Primitive" Unconscious of Modern Art Source: October, Vol. 34 , pp. 45-70 At: https://www.scribd.com/document/292247817/The-Primitive-Unconscious-of-Modern-Art (Accessed 26.01.2020)

2. Deleuze Gilles (1994) Difference and Repetition, Columbia University Press

3. Deleuze Gilles (1998) Различие и повторение [in Russian] (Difference and Repetition) Translated by N.B. Mankovskaya

4. Derrida, J. (2000) Письмо и различие. [in Russian] (Writing and Difference). Translated by V. Lapitsky

5. Philosophy of Science, Reader (2005) T.G. Shchedrina, Moscow "Progress-Tradition" [in Russian] Философия науки, Хрестоматия (2005) Т.Г. Щедрина, Москва "Прогресс-Традиция"

6. Skoropanova I.S. (2001) Russian Postmodern Literature, Study Guide, Mokva, "Flint" [in Russian] Скоропанова И.С. (2001) Русская Постмодернистская Литература, Учебное пособие, Моква, "Флинта"

7. Hegel, G.W.F., (2018) The Phenomenology of Spirit, translated and edited by Terry Pinkard, Georgetown University, Washington DC

8. Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (2000) Phenomenology of the Spirit, Translated from German by G. G. Shpeta, Moscow "Science" [in Russian] Гегель Георг Вильгельм Фридрих (2000) Феноменология духа, Перевод с немецкого Г.Г. Шпета, Москва "Наука"

9. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps To An Ecology Of Mind. Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Jason Aronson Inc.

10. Barnett Newman (1905-1970) 'The First Man Was an Artist' first published in Tiger's Eye (New York), No.1 (October 1947), pp. 59-60. Reprinted in: Art in Theory, 1900–2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Charles Harrison, Paul J. Wood, 2003, 2nd Edition Blackwell Publishing

11. Erofeev, В., (1981) Moscow Circles (Moscow to the end of the line), Translated from the Russian by J. R. Dorrell. MOSKVA - PETUSHKI by Editions Albin Michel, Paris

12. Erofeev, V., (2001) “Moscow-Petushki”, Moscow, VAGRIUS [in Russian] Ерофеев, В., (2001) «Москва -Петушки», Москва, ВАГРИУС

13. Houston K., (2017) "How Mining the Museum Changed the Art World" In: Bmore Art At: https://bmoreart.com/2017/05/how-mining-the-museum-changed-the-art-world.html (Accessed 27.01.2020)

14. Elisabeth Ginsberg (1993) Beautiful Trouble, Mining the museum At: https://beautifultrouble.org/case/mining-the-museum/ (Accessed 27.01.2020)

15. Great philosophers. Gilles Deleuze; Великие философы. Жиль Делёз At: https://youtu.be/dB0LpY80mHg (Accessed 28.01.2020)

16. Wikipedia, Fred Wilson, online At: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Wilson_(artist) (Accessed 17.06.2020)