Objects, Things and The Lyrical Museum

In Things and Words: Toward a Lyrical Museum, Mickail Epshtein writes about the idea of a Lyrical Museum. I have picked out some quotes from this text, alongside some of my notes and thoughts about this text.

Ephstein writes that things are usually in museums because they're '...very rare or ancient, unique and valuable in themselves.' or they '...are important as samples typical for an entire family or class of similar things...' or '...interesting because of their association with a prominent figure...a museum memorial.' (Epshtein 1993: 152). He writes that in contrast a Lyrical Museum would display: '...the things of everyday life, in general use, without a particular monetary, historical or artistic value; they are encountered everywhere and do not usually interest or surprise us. what is essential to such things is not their typicality but the individual existance marked by the habits and ideals of their owners.' (Epshtein 1993: 153)

'Usually a lyrical work is written not about Grandiose events... but about a 'magic moment', a passing smaile, a gentle breeze, or a speckle of dust

'...every thing, no matter how insignificant, can possess a private or lyrical value.' (Epshtein 1993: 153). The 'things' value is subjective, imbued by its owner - as a memento it perhaps carries or embodies a memory of a person, place or event. The object is the remaining, solid trace from the past, carrying a narrative either suggested by the physicality of its apperance (signs of ageing etc) or the verbal narrative told by its owner, finder or inheritor.

In contrast this makes me consider the objects in charity shops or rubbish dumps. The objects we no longer want, the things that aren't special enough to keep - what happens to them? In charity shops a higher value is given to things that look relatively new, with as little traces of their previous life as possible. I link this to the rag bags I recently documented from a charity shop - the things no one wanted - thinking abut their lost and hidden stories of their past - who wore them? why were they discarded? What makes the difference as to whether an object is valued and kept or thrown away without care? Is it arbitary and subjective (about personal experience and memory), rather than about any inherant physicality or material value of an object? 'A thing out of signification creates a break in the network of connections with others and with oneself' Epshtein 1993: 154). In terms of my own design process it makes me question, would it be possible to design and make objects that would have a personal value or link to the individual who bought them?