Surface Tensions at UCA
Creative practitioners, academics and conservationists convened at University for the Creative Arts, Rochester, to talk about objects and their surfaces. It was the first official symposium of the Surface Tensions research network, a collaborative project of UCA and the V&A Museum. Surface, seems like an odd topic, but that’s partly to do with its neglect, often relegated to the sidelines as the superficial skin which covers the underlying truth/meaning of an object – think about patterns, polish, fashion, ornamentation etc. But the day proved that surface is a far more confused beast. It asks questions of interaction, of course, as the surface is our point of contact but at the same time discussion demands some theoretical distance. The day brought forth seven speakers, each one approaching the subject from a very different place than the last.
Chaired by Glenn Adamson, V&A Museum, the day started with UCA's Victoria Kelley’s paper 'Surface Anxiety, Surface Delight' which looked at the practice of cleaning and its mediation between person and surface. Focusing on the late 19th and early 20th century, Kelley's research gave illuminating snippets of the voices of women engaged with their objects through the cyclical dance of polishing. Ulrich Lehmann, UCA, began with the dialectic of surface and material, suggesting that we need a different model to think about the relationship between the two. He used the work of fashion designer Carol Christian Poell, to show objects that interrogate surfaces including gloves made of leather so thin that it's transparent and garments made from raw hide, then put through the tanning process.
After lunch, ceramist Steve Brown shared the results of his PhD research. Interested in the history of ceramic surface and patterning, Brown looked at the relationship between flat print and the 3D object, specifically the compromise and distortion of the image to attach to the surface of the object. Using his practice to ‘reverse’ this relationship he created fabric shapes from printed patterns, he then fills those textile moulds with clay, when the piece is finished it is fired, the textile burning away leaving its print on the object’s surface.
(see more of Steve Brown’s work here)
Manuel Charpy, University of Lyons, gave a fascinating insight into the notion of ‘patina’ within the nineteenth century Parisian antiques market. Considering the value added by an aged surface, Charpy showed how demand resulted in fakery and forgery – one visitor to a forger’s workshop saw men beating the pieces to age them, commenting ‘they punished furniture for its newness’. The paper whilst appealing with wonderful stories asked important questions of the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the ‘history’ that played out on the surfaces of these antiques.
Simon Bliss, UCA, focused on Erik Magnussen’s 1927 coffee set ‘The Light and Shadows of Manhattan’, as a way to discuss surfaces in metalwork. Threading through a narrative of cubism, city skylines and flight, Bliss concluded that reflections off surfaces are integral within metalwork, especially the performance of jewellery, an aspect that it often ignored, even denied.
Dinah Eastop presented the Deliberately Concealed Garment Project (DCGP), to raise awareness of discoveries of clothing inside cavities or structures of buildings – who knew!? – such findings can be historically significant and the pieces are often vulnerable because the finder dismisses them as junk. The practice of concealing objects within the fabric of a building seems to be centuries old and yet little understood, perhaps a protective measure for the house or the wearer. The DCGP, by collecting the evidence hopes to answer the questions these discoveries throw up. (learn more about the project here)
Juxtaposition of old and new in Astana, Kasakhstan
The final paper of the day was one of the most ambitious, Victor Buchli of UCL highlighted the social effects of surface. Presenting two case studies, one from Soviet Russia and the other Kazakhstan, Buchli suggested that interior and architectural surfaces detach the user from their own individual nature towards participation in a cultural or political sphere. Buchli highlighted the practice of handing down the wooden lattice crown of traditional yurts in Kasakhstan, from father to son as a symbol of past and future within the family. The yurt crown has become a national emblem, separated from its function, now a surface and representative of a complex national identity.
During the day as a whole there was little talk about touch’s ‘consumption’ of the surface, but what was odd was the prevalence of handwork in the making of these surfaces, very few machine-made objects were shown. It seems our own bodily surface, the skin (and its sense’s metonym, the hand) needs to be overcome or at least dealt with in some way for the future. The gamut of subject and speakers shows how broad this topic is and how fruitful group discussion can be. Surfaces are vulnerable both physically, conceptually (and perhaps also vulnerable to a little bit of academic over-indulgence) their contested-ness is undeniable. Sprawling, conflicted and always interesting, the day proved that surface talk can be promisingly endless.
