Skip navigation.
Home

Question 6

The oft used discourse of 'figurines as representations' makes the concrete assertion that these objects are not things in themselves, but rather material proxies that stand in for something real. This elision entails a remove from the material world and suggests that materiality is somehow separable from the realm of ideas and that belief is a priori, instead of immaterial and material expressions being fundamentally entwined.

While I do think that

While I do think that figurines are often representations, particularly of what the artist or his or her commissioner thinks, they also have an agency of their own. People do not always simply accept that “this figurine represents x.” Even if they see a figurine with a particular expectation of what its meaning is supposed to be, they inevitably create their own idea of what it represents. Thus, while some belief can be a priori, figurines also serve to change beliefs and take on new meanings for every individual. In looking at just the figurines on this web site, I am sure that everyone has a different idea of what they represent. (KP)

I think that this site tends

I think that this site tends to separate the material from the more abstract concepts associated with the figurines, which has its obvious costs and benefits. As viewers, we are given more freedom with our interpretation than more traditional forms of figurine display, but it doesn't necessarily help me understand the past or place where these objects originated. Especially in the way they are handled, the site tends to present the figurines as objects alone, and any sense of prior social, religious, spiritual, or use associations with the figurine are admittedly lost to me in the analysis of its materiality. The video where an essay is being read over the images of the figurines seems like it's best trying to bridge this gap. [LMR]

I addressed part of this in

I addressed part of this in my answer to Q. 5, but I want to draw on the modern example of dolls I used earlier. Depending on who considers a doll, it is a stand-in for the real thing it represents. In this country, children playing with baby dolls when they’re little are substituting the doll for a real baby and playing the ‘parent’ role. Of course, within the very same culture, the same children play with action figures that have nothing to do with representing a real person or with playing any kind of role for the child, who simply animates them with their imagination. In an adult context, a statue sitting on a mantel in a modern home is probably not representative of anything save the human form it emulates. Instead, the importance of the figure may be derived from where it was bought or given to the person who owns it, or some other abstract meaning having nothing to do with the form itself. If we are to base our understanding of the past at least partly on the way we understand the world today, it seems unlikely that all figurines would be stand-ins for a specific person or idea. (CBL)