Malbin
Objects of Commonplaceness
3D Works on Paper
If Symbology is the art of expression through symbols, an argument can be made that most art can be loosely identified as such. A symbol substitutes one thing for another. It is something that represents an idea, process or physical entity. The purpose of the symbol is to communicate meaning. For example, the red octagon is a symbol for “stop”. An emblem, though, is an image or object, abstract or representational, that epitomizes a concept (i.e., a moral truth or an allegory), or that represents a person. The word emblem, then, perhaps, suits the majority of art more directly.
A symbol has only the meaning ascribed to itself, representing only a concept and not recognizable as a particular object. Therein lies a particular problem for artists in postmodern culture when trying to relate to an audience or viewer via cultural symbols or objects of supposed commonplaceness. This is because of the numerous cultural elements that make up any contemporary society.
Suffice it to say, that while an emblem can epitomize a concept, represent an object, either abstract or representational, it can also qualify and quantify as it does in the form of a sticker on a piece of fruit. But, where in this wordplay is the relative significance to my work? With a large enough audience, or if one succeeds in fabricating an object, emblematic of a universally relatable thing (concept), and void of monotony, they can then change the inherent meanings of this object. Has not the “Brillo box” forever been conjoined with Andy Warhol? It is certainly and emblem of and for the “pop art” movement. Thus, an object has been impregnated with a foreign value (as well as a predictable value).
“The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualification and thus adds his contribution to the creative act.”
-Marcel Duchamp