Objects and Imagination
When my sisters and I would visit my grandparents as children in Lagos, Nigeria, we would usually end up in a section of their living room, ‘acting’ out a story we had conceived once we arrived. These stories had four characters: my two sisters, myself, and a sculpture that sat in that part of the house. We named him Chief. He was an interesting character because he never actually moved or said anything, but was always the centre of whatever story we had concocted. He lived in our imagination.
When I hear the words ‘tangible media’, I think of moments like that; my encounters with African art where I was able to experience stories I did not live or see, growing up in the city of Lagos in the 21st century. It’s an interesting form of media, where an audience member is able to physically engage with a story, primarily through sight and touch.
But are sight and touch really all audience members need to properly engage with these stories? I think not. In Media Studies, we learn about denotation and connotation, the former being the intended meaning of media content and the latter, the audience’s understanding of it. Sometimes, in whatever media (books, TV, film, music) the audience’s understanding of the content differs from what its producer intended; even with the words, visuals and sounds accompanying the message. This is unsurprising; people will read messages differently, based on their experiences. When telling stories through objects, especially if there are no words to add context, a bigger part of interpretation is left to the viewer. Therefore, to grasp the intended message, the viewer must have some knowledge of the context or ‘world’ the object comes from.
My sisters and I gave Chief his name because he sat in a chair and held a staff. In our minds, he looked royal, or at least important. Since we had decided he was a chief, we set our stories in a Nigerian village, giving him characteristics we imagined chiefs had: he was rich, authoritative and had numerous wives. We were only able to re-create this world because we somewhat understood what it was like. Still, that was our interpretation of it.The denotations of art pieces are often stories of a place, culture or of the artists themselves (to whom, in this case, we had no access).
Take the Nok terracotta heads for example. Of the designs on their heads and necks, the Metropolitan (MET) Museum of Art says, ‘the variety, inventiveness, and beauty of their design is a beguiling record of cultivated devotion to body ornamentation’(2000). This tells the viewer that whoever created this sculpture was most likely used to decorating their own bodies with ornaments- it gives the viewer a look into the aesthetics of the artist’s world.
The MET Museum also mentions that the size of the head is largely disproportionate to the rest of its body. While little is known about the Nok culture which would point as to why that is, other African works used larger heads to symbolise intelligence (MET, 2000). A picture is forming here; with this prior knowledge, a viewer could look at the image above and go, ‘their people are probably beautiful and smart’. And, even though I’m using Nigerian art as an example, I think stories are being told through objects that weren’t necessarily created for display, and in many parts of the world.
I love visiting old manors. My most recent visit was to Casa Loma here in Toronto. If one were to walk the grounds of the house and disregard the plaques and videos that accompany the exhibition, they’d still be able to get a sense of the kind of person who lived there. You could tell he was wealthy, by the size of the house; that he was important, based on its location; and that he liked cars, based on how many he owned. I could see his daily routine playing before my eyes, like an episode of Downton Abbey.
The examples I’ve given have been period pieces because I think that makes the stories they tell even more interesting. How can stories be told now through objects? I think that happens all the time with what we choose to wear, the cars we drive and the ‘stuff’ we own (I personally like to buy ‘merch’ from various television shows and films). We’re putting out messages about ourselves by the way we look. And with regards to media makers, modern stories are told using objects through means such as installations; but perhaps the challenge with telling stories through objects is creating something unique that the viewer can actively engage with, while still getting your message across.
I also think, however, that the beauty of tangible media is the extent to which it engages the audience’s imagination. And maybe that’s why period pieces are more attractive to me: I’m stepping into a place and a time I have not been a part of, where I have enough freedom to see a story of my own making but within the confines created for me by whatever knowledge I already have of the object itself.
Nok Sculpture picture from: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/nok/hd_nok.htm
