0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
50 просмотров2 страницы
Gretchen buggein: Material Religion is a journal dedicated to materializing the study of religion. She says many studies of religious objects have been inward looking. Buggein says we need to respect objects' autonomy and integrity.
Gretchen buggein: Material Religion is a journal dedicated to materializing the study of religion. She says many studies of religious objects have been inward looking. Buggein says we need to respect objects' autonomy and integrity.
Gretchen buggein: Material Religion is a journal dedicated to materializing the study of religion. She says many studies of religious objects have been inward looking. Buggein says we need to respect objects' autonomy and integrity.
object gretchen buggein Material Religion is a journal dedicated to "materializing the study of religion," but is it also devoted to studying the material of religion? The editors are right when Ihey claim that many studies of religious objects have i^een inward looking, satisfied with taxonomy and description. They suggest that this older "connoisseurship" model, one that led to "biographies of objects," went out of fashion when schoiars initiated a "pervasive theorization," a turn to material practices and how they shape selves and communities. But with an eagerness to talk about practice, have we too impatiently breezed by the objects? Humans do things with images and objects, but objects also do things to us; because of this, we need to respect their autonomy and integritytheir materiality. If we have an object before us (and granted this is not always possible), how do we best make Lise of it? in the 1960s, influenced by the new social history's interest in the ordinary doings of ordinary people, social historians began thinking seriously about objects as historical sources. The promise was twofold. Pirst. object study would tell us things about people who had left no other iiistorical record. Second, objects, if investigated properly, would tell us things abcut human values and beliefs that were so prevalent, so assumed, that they were othenAilse unarticulated. American material culture study was developed largely by scholars trained in the decorative arts, who wanted the domestic objects they studied to do more, to answer bigger questions. These schoiars, nonetheless, remained dedicated to "connoisseurship," a method that forced them to study objects closely, to understand their forms, their articulation, their materials, the details of their production. This method demanded spending time interacting with material sources, it also required that one know something of the universe of objects in which a particular thing lived. Objects, these scholars argued, existed in answer to specific human needs, and they also represented choices, in order to understand those choices, the scholar needs to know what was not chosen as well. Gretctien Buggein teaches hu siudlas in Ctmsi College, ttie U ni ver si t y, S i i ! . ' " ' " ' "-'. feftglon, archttt: Material ReKgkxi vrtume 5, Issue 3, pp. 357-358 D OI: 102752/175183409X12550007730066 RGI Although definitions can be fuzzy, material culture was never so much a field of study as a method. As an example of this method, consider an ordinary coffee mug (Rgure 1 ): 10 centimeters (4 inches) tall, earthenware with a white glaze, smooth surface, comfortable handle, contains roughly ten fluid ounces of liquid, emblazoned with a university insignia, a "made in China" decal on the bottom, A facile treatment of this object might quickly suggest that the object shows that Americans drink coffee and like to advertise their educational pedigree. One could then move on to speculate abcut this ritual of coffee drinking. A connoisseur, on the other hand, will first look at the object closely, notice patterns of wear, ask what it feels like in the hand, how comfortably and successfully it does its job. She will wonder about the choice of this rather than that material, why the cup is white. She wili question how this cup might come to be chosen over another, look closely at the college mctto, ask questions about global trade, and finally, get to questions about ritual and economy. The proper place for theory is after some open-minded data collection; interpretation is built on a foundation of both connoisseurship and theory. It took American material culture studies a while to find religionlargely because of strong ties to the discipline of history, in which the study of religion remained mired in doctrine and 2009 denominations until quite reoentty. But a turn to the study of "lived reiigion" elevated objects to a criticai role. One of the key differences between materiai and visual culture stems from the latter's origins in art history, where recognizing the autonomy of the object didn't mean acknowledging its social agency but rather affirming its unique greatness. Except for antiquarians, historians rarely felf this way about objects. Although I generally assume that visual culture is a subset of material culture, I don't believe the questions are aiways the same. Images and objects don't function in precisely the same ways. We respond to both through our senses, but there are important aspects of objects that are handled and used for material ends that require greater attention to materiality. Nonetheless, a scholar of material religion might apply the method outlined above to any material thing: a plastic figure of a Catholic saint, a donm room poster with a spiritual theme, a Hindu idol. The study of reiigion has benefited immensely from scholarly attention to "situating objects within ritual contexts as material fonris of performance, signaling the importance of centering analysis in practice rather than the object alone." We write enthusiastically about practice and ritual. But the object, i fear, has become somewhat incidental in this enterprise, and I'm concerned that we are losing track of its independent integrity as a historical source. For me, as an architectural histohan, honoring the integrity of the material means that when I look at a building I don't immediately jump to thinking about the "dynamic set of relations between social actors, institutions, objects, spaces, imaginarles, and the sacred." That is the goal, of course, but not step one. I will want to think about how the space is used; if possible to witness people interacting with it. But first I need to let the building speak fcr itseif. If I'm patient, I'll notice things I might otherwise miss, and these details will raise potentially revealing questions. For instance, why is the sanctuary dad in stone and the education building in redwood siding? Why do the ceiling heights change from space to space? What is the plan, fabric, lighting of the narthex, relative to the worship space? Why does the two-story education wing have fourteen rooms arranged along long hallways? Then I'll move outward to consider the universe cf objects: how does this education wing compare, materially, to the one at the Baptist church down the road, or the public school next door? These are questions commonly asked in vernacular architecture studies, where the emphasis, coming out of folklore and anthropoiogy, has always been on understanding people and communities (see the journal Buildings and Landscapes]. I am drawn to religious buildings and objects because I want to understand lives. I begin with a close study of the material world but tead outward to bigger questions of practice and, ultimately, cultural value and meaning. If cne is an archaeologist staring at a handful of artifacts that are remnants of a civilization, it is natural, in fact imperative, to give devoted attention to the details of those things. If one studies the modern world, however, a multiplicity of sources clamors for our attention, tempting us to neglect the difficult but important work of really giving material sources our attention. Connoisseurship, I would argue, is foundational for the richest scholarship that readers of Material Religlor} hope to both produce and engage. 358