People and their Objects

The authors of “Living in a Material World: Object Biography and
Transnational Lives “, and Turan address the importance of objects and their relations to people. Most importantly, these articles link the way in which these objects function as a link to another time and space, and how they have functioned within that space and time. Specifically, Turan looks at the way material objects have aided the New York Palestinian diaspora, and the associations these items have had “to other people, places, or history” (2). Despite a physical dislocation, the people Turan interview express a connection to their Palestinian roots, which, in many cases, surmounts their American identity. Here, objects help them articulate this connection. “Facilitating environments”, these objects represent more than individuals lived experiences, but also represent the identity at a larger, more “collective” level (3). A common thread between the articles is the way these valued objects seem to emit defiance. As if, in their existence, they sustain and maintain something that would otherwise be lost. Schamberger, Sear, Wehner, and Wilson stress the agency that exists at the hands of the objects themselves, and highlights this through object biographies. These object biographies allow us to recognize the impact objects have on us, and how they participate in the formation of history, memory, and a general sense of homeland (as established in the relationships between objects and people).
The “Australian Journeys Gallery” goes beyond the typical form with which objects are represented in a Museum. Rather than have these objects on display, isolated, and without context, they are chosen on the basis of what they represent. Not based on beauty or monetary value, these object carry importance on the basis of their relations to the inhabitants of Australia. This is rather interesting as, despite being displayed in one country, these objects bespeak the experiences and culture of another. This article does wonders in providing the historical context from which these items have emerged, and tying it together with the people who have shared it. Upon arriving in Australia, Guna Kinne was able to complete her bonnet and Minh Tam Nguyen was able to perfect his instrument, showing the ability for objects to connect and hybridize. This is exemplified within the very intention of Nguyens instrument, in that it is designed to play both Western and Eastern music. In this way, objects are not stagnate or fixed, but are able to take on a wealth of meaning, and in a variety of contexts. I found that the process of creating object biographies asks us to recognize the agency and power that they hold. In the same way we create biographies about people in the belief that it will demarcate their accomplishments; these biographies catalog the journeys and developments of these material objects. They ask us to observe in an atypical way, but also, they allow us to see a world that might otherwise go silenced (somewhat representative of the diasporic experience).
As Turan notes, the objects that are highlighted in the article occupy both public and private spaces. In this way, he asks us to recognize the ability for objects to bespeak a community as well as an individual. I wonder whether these spaces are able to exist independent of one and other. Because these objects are meant to represent a culture or community, it seems to me that they are inherently public (or atleast shared), but that at the time, they must carry some kind of personal connection due to objects direct tie to ones identity.
Questions
1. As linked to my comment above… Do you think that all objects can occupy private and public attachment exclusively? Or do they occur simultantiously or in varying degrees?

2. Do objects lose “value” if their original meaning is misunderstood? And is this something that should be lamented? Or should we celebrate the transformation and adaptation of objects within new settings?