Thing Theory
Bill Brown
Critical Inquiry, Vol. 28, No. 1, Things. (Autumn, 2001), pp. 1-22.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-1896%28200123%2928%3A1%3C1%3ATT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4
Critical Inquiry is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Mon Sep 24 21:08:01 2007
Thing Theory
Bill Brown
Le sujet nait de l'objet.
-Michel Serres
Is there something perverse, if not archly insistent, about complicating
things with theory? Do we really need anything like thing theory the way
we need narrative theory or cultural theory, queer theory or discourse
theory? Why not let things alone? Let them rest somewhere else-in the
balmy elsewhere beyond theory. From there, they might offer us dry
ground above those swirling accounts of the subject, some place of origin
unmediated by the sign, some stable alternative to the instabilities and
uncertainties, the ambiguities and anxieties, forever fetishized by theory.
Something warm, then, that relieves us from the chill of dogged ideation,
something concrete that relieves us from unnecessary abstraction.
The longing forjust such relief is described by A. S. Byatt at the outset
of The BiographerS Tale (2000).Fed up with Lacan as with deconstructions
of the Wolf-Man,a doctoral student looks up at a filthy window and
epiphanically thinks, "I must have things." He relinquishes theory to relish
For their work on this issue I am indebted to my coeditors and to Jay Williams (who
manages to manage details with profound equilibrium) and Kristin Casady. For their generous
responses to this introduction, I'd like to thank Lauren Berlant, Jessica Burstein,James
Chandler, Frances Ferguson, W. J. T. Mitchell,Jane1 Mueller,Joel Snyder, and Diana Young.
And for her part in our ongoing conversation about things, I'd like to thank Miriam
Hansen.
CntfcnlInqarq 28 (Autumn 2001)
O 2001 b, The Lnnrrslt\ of Chicago 0093-1896/01/2801-0001$02 00 All I lghts resened
Graciela Sacco. From the series Bocanodn Inrtalacidn: 100 cuchuras colgando, Bassel,
2000. From GracielaSacco (BuenosAires, 2001).
2 Bill Brown Thing Theory
the world at hand: "A real, very dirty window, shutting out the sun. A
thing."
In the last century, this longing became an especiallyfamiliar refrain.
"Ideas," Francis Ponge wrote, shortly after World War 11, "give me a
queasy feeling, nausea," whereas "objects in the external world, on the
other hand, delight me."' If, more recently, some delight has been taken
in historicism's "desire to make contact with the 'real,"' in the emergence
of material culture studies and the vitality of material history, in accounts
of everyday life and the material habitus,.as in the "return df the real" in
contemporary art, this is inseparable,surely,from the very pleasure taken
in "objects of the external world," however problematic that external
world may be-however phantasmatic the externality of that world may
be theorized to be.3These days, you can read books on the pencil, the
zipper, the toilet, the banana, the chair, the potato, the bowler hat.4These
days, history can unabashedly begin with things and with the senses by
which we apprehend them; like a modernist poem, it begins in the street,
with the smell "of frying oil, shag tobacco and unwashed beer glasses."'
1.A. S. Byatt, TheBiographer's Tale (New York, 2001), p. 2.
2. Francis Ponge, "My Creative Method," The Voice of Things, trans. and ed. Beth Archer
(New York, 1972),p. 93. In contrast, it was the confrontation with the materiality of
matter-"below all explanationn-that occasioned a very different nausea, not Ponge's but
Roquentin's (Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea, trans. Lloyd Alexander [New York, 19641, p. 129).
For the canonical expression of the thingltheory binary in American poetry, see Robert
Haas, "Meditation at Lagunitas," Praise (Hopewell, N.J., 1979),pp. 4-5.
3. Catherine Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt, Practicing New Historicism (Chicago,
2000), p. 54. For a brief account of the emergence of material culture studies (institutionally
marked by theJournal of Material Culture),see Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter, ed.
Daniel Miller (Chicago, 1998);and for the U.S. tradition, see Learnzngfrom Things:Method
and Theory of Material Culture Studies, ed. David Kingery (Washington, D.C., 1995).On contemporary
art, see Hal Foster, TheReturn of the Real: TheAvant-Garde at the End of the Century
(Cambridge, Mass., 1996).On the concept of exteriority, see esp.Jacques Derrida, Positions,
trans. Alan Bass (Chicago, 1978),p. 64, and Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive
Limzts of "Sex" (New York, 1993),p. 30.
4. See Henry Petroski, The Pencil:A Hzstory of Design and Czrcumstance(New York, 1989);
Robert Friedel, Zipper:An Exploratzon in Novelty (New York, 1994);Julie L. Horan, The Porcelain
God:A Social Hzstory of the Toilet (New York, 1997); Virginia Scott Jenkins, Bananas: An
American History (Washington, D.C., 2000); Galen Cranz, The Chair:Rethinkzng Culture,Body,
and Design (New York, 2000); Larry Zuckerman, The Potato: How the Humble Spud Rescued the
Western World (San Francisco, 1999);and Fred Miller Robinson, The Man in the Bowler Hat:
His Hzstory and Iconography (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1993).
5. Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the
GoldenAge (New York, 1987),p. 15.
Bill Brown, professor of English at the University of Chicago and a
coeditor of Critical Inquiry, is the author of The Material Unconscious (1996)
and A Sense of Things (2002).
3Critical Inquiry Autumn 2001
Can't we learn from this materialism instead of taking the trouble to
trouble it? Can't we remain content with the "real, very dirty window"a
"thingn-as the answer to what ails us without turning it into an ailment
of its own?
Fat chance. For even the most coarse and commonsensical things,
mere things, perpetually pose a problem because of the specific unspecificitythat
"things"denotes. Mind you,for Ponge,objectsmay seem substitutable
for things, and by "siding with things" (le parti pris des choses) he
meant to take the part of specified objects-doorknobs, figs, crates, blackberries,
stoves, water.6But the very semantic reducibility of things to objects,
coupled with the semantic irreducibility of things to objects, would seem to
mark one way of recognizing how, although objects typically arrest a poet's
attention, and although the object was what was asked to join the
dance in philosophy, things may still lurk in the shadows of the ballroom
and continue to lurk there after the subject and object have done their
thing, long after the party is over. When it comes to Ponge, in fact, the
matter isn't so simple as it seems. Michael Riffaterre has argued that the
poems, growing solely out of a "word-kernel" (mot-noyau), defy referentialit~;~Jacques
Derrida has argued that, throughout the poet's effort "to
make the thing sign,"the "thing is not an object [and]cannotbecome one."8
Taking the side of things hardly puts a stop to that thing called theory.
"Things are what we encounter, ideas are what we project." That's
how Leo Stein schematically put it.9Although the experience of an encounter
depends, of course, on the projection of an idea (the idea of encounter),
Stein's scheme helps to explain the suddenness with which
things seem to assert their presence and power: you cut your finger on a
sheet of paper, you trip over some toy, you get bopped on the head by a
6. His "delight" in these objects was prompted not by any familiarity, but by the suddenly
recognizedpeculiarity of the everyday, the fact that water "lies flat on its stomach" in
a "hysterical urge to submit to gravity," for instance, sacrificing "all sense of decency to this
idlefixe, this pathological scruple" ("ce scrupule maladif") (Ponge, "Of Water," trans. C. K.
Williams, Selected Poems, trans. Williams, John Montague, and Margaret Guiton, ed. Guiton
[Winston-Salem, N.C., 19941, pp. 57, 58; Le Partipris des choses is the title of the volume of
poetry in which "Of Water" first appeared).
7. Michael Riffaterre, "Ponge tautologique, ou le fonctionnement du texte," Ponge inuenteur
et classique, ed. Philippe Bonnefis and Pierre Oster (Paris, 1977),p. 66. See also h f faterre,
"The Primacy of Words: Francis Ponge's Reification," Figuring Things: Char, Ponge,
and Poetry in the Twentieth Century, ed. Charles D. Minahen (Lexington, Ky., 1994),pp. 27-38.
8. Derrida, SignipongelSignsponge, trans. Richard Rand (New York, 1984),pp. 126, 14.
9. Leo Stein, The A-B-C of Aesthetics (New York, 1927),p. 44.
4 Bill Brown Thing Theory
falling nut. These are occasions outside the scene of phenomenological
attention that nonetheless teach you that you're "caught up in things"
and that the "body is a thing among things."l o They are occasions of contingency-the
chance interruption-that disclose a physicality of things.
In Byatt's novel, the interruption of the habit of looking through windows
as transparencies enables the protagonist to look at a window itself in its
opacity.As they circulate through our lives, we look through objects (tosee
what they disclose about history, society, nature, or culture-above all,
what they disclose about us),but we only catch a glimpse of things." We
look through objects because there are codes by which our interpretive
attention makes them meaningful, because there is a discourse of objectivity
that allows us to use them as facts. A thing, in contrast, can hardly
function as a window. We begin to confront the thingness of objects when
they stop working for us: when the drill breaks, when the car stalls, when
the windows get filthy, when their flow within the circuits of production
and distribution, consumption and exhibition, has been arrested, however
momentarily. The story of objects asserting themselves as things,
then, is the story of a changed relation to the human subject and thus the
story of how the thing really names less an object than a particular
subject-object relation.
And, yet, the word things holds within it a more audacious ambiguity.
It denotes a massive generality as well as particularities, even your particularly
prized possessions: "'Things' were of course the sum of the world;
only, for Mrs. Gereth, the sum of the world was rare French furniture
and oriental china."I2The word designates the concrete yet ambiguous
within the everyday: "Put it by that green thing in the hall." It functions
to overcome the loss of other words or as a place holder for some future
specifying operation: "I need that thing you use to get at things between
your teeth." It designates an amorphous characteristic or a frankly irresolvable
enigma: "There's a thing about that poem that I'll never get."
For Byatt's protagonist, the quest for things may be a quest for a kind of
certainty, but things is a word that tends, especially at its most banal, to
10. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, "Eye and Mind," trans. Carleton Dallery, The Primucy of
Perceptionand OtherEssays on Phenomenological Psjchology, the Philosophj ofArt, Histo?, and Politics,
trans. James M. Edie et al., ed. Edie (Evanston, Ill., 1964),p. 163.
11. The window scene in Byatt's novel should be read in relation to Nabokov's point
about how, things become multiply transparent and read in the context of a dialectic of
lookingthrough and lookingat: "When we concentrate on a material object, whatever its situation,
the very act of attention may lead to our involuntarily sinking into the history of that
object" (Vladimir Nabokov, TransparentThings [New York, 19721,p. 1).We don't apprehend
things except partially or obliquely (as what's beyond our apprehension).In fact, by looking
at things we render them objects.
12. Henry James, The Spoils ofPoynton (1896; New York, 1987),p. 49. In his preface
for the New York edition of the novel (reprinted in this Penguin edition, pp. 23-33), James
plays with a full range of the word's denotations (for example: "The thing is to lodge somewhere,
at the heart of one's complexity an irrepressible appreciation" [p. 311).
5Critical Inquiry Autumn 2001
index a certain limit or liminality, to hover over the threshold between
the nameable and unnameable, the figurable and unfigurable, the identifiable
and unidentifiable: Dr. Seuss's Thing One and Thing Two.'"
On the one hand, then, the thing baldly encountered. On the other,
some thing not quite apprehended. Could you clarify this matter of
things by starting again and imagining them, first, as the amorphousness
out of which objects are materialized by the (ap)perceiving subject, the
anterior physicality of the physical world emerging, perhaps, as an aftereffect
of the mutual constitution of subject and object, a retroprojection?
You could imagine things, second, as what is excessive in objects, as what
exceeds their mere materialization as objects or their mere utilization as
objects-their force as a sensuous presence or as a metaphysical presence,
the magic by which objects become values, fetishes, idols, and totems.
Temporalized as the before and after of the object, thingness amounts to
a latency (the not yet formed or the not yet formable) and to an excess
(what remains physically or metaphysically irreducible to objects). But
this temporality obscures the all-at-onceness, the simultaneity, of the objecuthing
dialectic and the fact that, all at once, the thing seems to name the
objectjust as it is even as it names some thing else.
If thing theory sounds like an oxymoron, then, it may not be because
things reside in some balmy elsewhere beyond theory but because they
lie both at hand and somewhere outside the theoretical field, beyond a
certain limit, as a recognizable yet illegible remainder or as the entifiable
that is unspecifiable. Things lie beyond the grid of intelligibility the way
mere things lie outside the grid of museal exhibition, outside the order
of objects. If this is why things appear in the name of relief from ideas
(what's encountered as opposed to what's thought), it is also why the
Thing becomes the most compelling name for that enigma that can only
be encircled and which the object (by its presence) necessarily negates.14
In Lacan, the Thing is and it isn't. It exists, but in no phenomenal form.
13. By hastily tracking some of the ways we use thzngs to both mark and manage uncertainty
I am specifically not deploying an etymological inquiry to delimit and vivify the
meaning of things. But see, most famously, Marcel Mauss, who finds in the "best" etymology
of res a means of claiming that res "need not have been the crude, merely tangible thing, the
simple, passive object of transaction that it has become" (Marcel Mauss, ~ h rGlft: ~ h e ~ o r l n
and Reasonfor Exchange inArchaic Societies, trans. W. D. Halls [1950; New York, 19901,p. 50);
and Martin Heidegger, who finds in the Old German dinc the denotation of a gathering of
people that enables him to concentrate on how "thinging" gathers; see Martin Heidegger,
"The Thing," in Poetrj, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York, 1971),pp.
174-82. I should add that Heidegger believes that it is the English word thing that has
preserved the "semantic power" of the original Roman word res, which is to say its capacity
to designate a case, an affair, an event (p. 175). In turn, Michel Serres complains that such
etymology-wherein objects exist "only according to assembly debatesn-shows how "language
wishes the whole world to derive from language" (Michel Serres, Statues: Le Second
Liure desfondations [Paris, 19871,p. 111).
14. SeeJacques Lacan, TheEthics of Psychoanalysis 1959-1960, volume 7 of The Seminar
ofJacques Lacan, trans. Dennis Porter, ed.Jacques-Alain Miller (New York, 1992),p. 139.The
6 Bill Brown Thing Theory
The real, of course, is no more phenomenal in physics than it is in
psychoanalysis-or, as in psychoanalysis, it is phenomenal only in its effects.
Somewhere beyond or beneath the phenomena we see and touch
there lurks some other life and law of things, the swarm of electrons.
Nonetheless, even objects squarely within the field of phenomenality are
often less clear (that is, less opaque)the closer you look. As Georg Simmel
said of telescopic and microscopic technology, "coming closer to things
often only shows us how far away they still are from us."I5Sidney Nagel
brings the form of the drop into optical consciousness (pp. 23-39) and
thus demonstrates (like Ponge) how the most familiar forms, once we
look, seem unpredictable and inexplicable, to poets and physicists both.
If, as Daniel Tiffany argues (pp. 72-98), humanistic criticism should assert
its explanatory power when it comes to the problem of matter, this is
because the problem can't be sequestered from the tropes that make matter
make sense.16
Only by turning away from the problem of matter, and away from
the objectlthing dialectic, have historians, sociologists, and anthropologists
been able to turn their attention to things (to the "social life of
things" or the "sex of things" or the "evolution of things").As Arjun Appadurai
has put it, such work depends on a certain "methodological fetishism"
that refuses to begin with a formal "truth" that cannot, despite its
truth, "illuminate the concrete, historical circulation of things." In The
Social L$e of Things, he argues that "even though from a theoretical point
of view human actors encode things with significance, from a methodological
point of view it is the things-in-motion that illuminate their human
and social ~ontext."'~ AppaduraiSuch methodological fetishism-what
calls the effort to "follow the things themselvesn-disavows, no less, the
tropological work, the psychological work, and the phenomenological
Thing can only be "represented by emptiness, precisely because it cannot be represented
by anything else" (p. 129). For a useful commentary, see Slavoj ~ i i e k ,"Much Ado about
a Thing," For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor (London, 1991),
pp. 229-78. Doctrinaire Lacanians may tell you that the Thing names only one thing in Lacan,
but in fact it has different meanings and different valences in different texts and within
single texts.
15. Georg Simmel, The Philosophj of Money, trans. Tom Bottomore, David Frisby, and
Kaethe Mengelberg, 2d ed. (1907; New York, 1990),p. 475.
16. For a further elaboration of this point, see Daniel Tiffany, Toy Medium: Materialism
and Modern Lyric (Berkeley, 2000), and Material Events: Paul de Man and the Afterlge of Theory,
ed. Tom Cohen et al. (Minneapolis,2001).
17. Arjun Appadurai, "Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value," The Social
Lqe of Thzngs: Commoditiesin Cultural Perspective, ed. rlppadurai (Cambridge, 1986),p. 5.
7Critical Inquiry Autumn 2001
work entailed in the human production of materiality as such. It does so,
however,in the name of avowing the force of questions that have been too
readily foreclosed by more familiar fetishizations: the fetishization of the
subject, the image, the word. These are questions that ask less about the
material effects of ideas and ideology than about the ideological and ideational
effects of the material world and of transformations of it. They are
questions that ask not whether things are but what work they performquestions,
in fact, not about things themselves but about the subjectobject
relation in particular temporal and spatial contexts. These may be
the first questions, if only the first, that precipitate a new materialism that
takes objects for granted only in order to grant them their potency-to
show how they organize our private and public affection.I8
Methodological fetishism, then, is not an error so much as it is a condition
for thought, new thoughts about how inanimate objects constitute
human subjects, how they move them, how they threaten them, how they
facilitate or threaten their relation to other subjects. What are the conditions,
Jonathan Lamb asks (pp. 133-66), for sympathizing with animals
and artifacts, and how does such sympathy threaten Locke's "thinking
thing," the self? Why, Michael Taussig asks as he reads Sylvia Plath's last
poems (pp. 305-16), does death have the capacity both to turn people
into things and to bring inanimate objects to life? How is it, Rey Chow
asks (pp. 286-304), that an individual's collecting passion threatens the
state? (And what, we might ask these days, as the Taliban obsessivelyobliterates
figures of Buddha, does the state think it destroys when it destroys
such objects?)These are questions that hardly abandon the subject, even
when they do not begin there. When it comes to the Subject as such-that
Cartesian subject which becomes the abstract subject of democracy and
psychoanalysis-Matthew Jones points to its emergence within the spiritual
exercise of concrete work, work with rulers and compas~es.'~He
shows how "a simple mathematical instrument [the proportional compass]
became the model and exemplar of Descartes's new subject," the
subject "supposedly so removed from the material" (pp. 40-71).
What habits have prevented readers of Descartes from recognizing
this material complication? What habits have prevented us-prevented
you-from thinking about objects, let alone things? Or, more precisely,
perhaps: what habits have prevented you from sharing your thoughts? In
one of his neglected, slightly mad manifestos, Jean Baudrillard sanely
18. The most influential books to introduce such questions have undoubtedly been
Gaston Bachelard, The Poetzcs of Space, trans. Maria Jolas (Boston, 1969),and Susan Stewart,
On Longzng: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gzgantic, the Souveni~;the Collection (Baltimore,
1984). For the most thorough recent representation of how objects organize human life,
see the costarring role of the volleyball, Wilson, in Castaway, dir. Robert Zemeckis, prod.
DreamWorksIImage MoversiPlaytone, 2000.
19. On the Cartesian subject within democracy and psychoanalysis, see Joan Copjec,
Read My Desire: Lacan against the Historicists (Cambridge, Mass., 1994), pp. 141-62.
8 Bill Brown Thing Theory
declares that "we have always lived off the splendor of the subject and the
poverty of the object." "It is the subject," he goes on to write, "that makes
history, it's the subject that totalizes the world," whereas the object "is
shamed, obscene, passive." The object has been intelligible only as the
"alienated, accursed part of the subjectH-the "individual subject or collective
subject, the subject of consciousness or the unconscious." "The fate
of the object," to Baudrillard's knowledge, "has been claimed by no
one.""' And, yet, the very grandiosity of Baudrillard's claim about the object
(and the "potency of the object") threatens the subject no more than
it threatens (by absorbing) both objects and things."
In a response both to perceptual phenomenology and to the ontological
quest for being, Cornelius Castoriadis pronounced the need to
abandon our image of representation as "a projection screen which,
unfortunately, separates the 'subject' and the 'thing."'2y Representation
does not provide "impoverished 'images' of things"; rather, "certain segments"
of representation "take on the weight of an 'index of reality' and
become 'stabilized', as well as they might, without this stabilization ever being
assured once and for all, as 'perceptions of things"' (I,pp. 331, 332).
The argument shares the more recent emphasis on understanding materiality
as a materiality-effect,23but it most pointedly seeks to recast thing-
20.Jean Baudrillard, Fatal Strategies, trans. Philip Beitchman and \V. G.J. Niesluchowski,
ed.Jim Fleming (New York, 1990),p. 111. For a more sober account of this history, see
Serres, Statues, pp. 208-12. For Baudrillard's own account of his manifesto in the context of
his earlier thoughts about objects (under the spell, as it were, of Mauss and Bataille), see
Baudrillard, "From the System to the Destiny of Objects," The Ecstasy of Communication, trans.
Bernard and Caroline Schutze, ed. Sylvkre Lotringer (New York, 1988), pp. 77-95 and
"Revenge of the Crystal: An Interview by Guy Bellavance," Reuenge of the Crjstal: Selected
Writings on the Modern Object and Its Destiny, 1968-1983, trans. and ed. Paul Foss and Julian
Pefanis (London, 1990),pp. 15-34.
21. I've made this point at greater length in Bill Brown, "The Secret Life of Things:
Virginia Woolf and the Matter of Modernism," Modernism and Modernit) 6 (Apr. 1999): 1-28.
22. Cornelius Castoriadis, The Imaginary Institution of Soczety, trans. Kathleen Blamey
(1975; Cambridge, Mass., 1987),p. 329; hereafter abbreviated I. Castoriadis is a theorist of
plentitude and thus complains about desire being defined by the lack of a desired object,
when in fact the object must be present to the psyche as desirable, which means that the
psyche has in fact already fashioned it; see I, pp. 288-90. Still, there is what you might call
a dialectic of insufficiency that proves more troubling; crudely put, deconstruction teaches
that the word is never as good as the referent, but pychoanalysis teaches that the actual
object is never as good as the sign
23. Thus, for instance, ~ u d i t hButler writes, in a footnote emphasizing the "temporality
of matter," and thinking through Marx's first thesis on Feuerbach, "if materialism were
to take account of praxis as that which constitutes the very matter of objects, and praxis is
9Critical Inquiry Autumn 2001
ness and its apprehension within, and as, the domain of the social: the
"'thing' and the 'individual', the individual as 'thing' and as the one for
whom there are indubitably 'things' are [all],to begin with . . .dimensions
of the institution of society" (I,p. 332). By means of a particular "socialization
of the psyche," then, "each society" imposes itself on the subject's
senses, on the "corporealimagznation" by which materiality as such is apprehended
(I,p. 334).
Though he is willing to grant (grudgingly)that there is some "transcultural
pole of the institution of the things," one that "leans on the natural
stratum," Castoriadis maintains, quite rightly, that this "still says
nothing about what a thing is and what things are for a given society" (I,
p. 334). The "perception of things" for an individual from one society,
for instance, will be the perception of things "inhabited" and "animated";
for an individual from another society things will instead be "inert instruments,
objects of possession" (I,pp. 334-35). This discrepancy between
percepts (and thus not just the meaning but the very being of objects)
has been a central topic of anthropology at least since the work of Marcel
Mauss: however materially stable objects may seem, they are, let us say,
different things in different scene~.~"ut when you ask "what things are
for a given society" (noticing, by the way, how societies have taken the
place of things as the given), surely the inquiry should include attention
to those artistic and philosophical texts that would become sources, then,
for discovering not epistemological or phenomenological truth but the
truth about what force things or the question of things might have in
each society. Indeed, such attention would help to preclude the homogenization
of each society in its insular eachness. For, on the one hand,
differences between societies can be overdrawn; as Peter Stallybrass and
Ann Rosalind Jones make clear (pp. 114-32), the Western Renaissance
may have witnessed "fetishism" elsewhere,but it was saturated by a fetishism
of its own. On the other, differences within each society can be overlooked:
to call a woman in Soweto a "'slave of things"' is to charge her
with being "'a white black woman."'25
The question is less about "what things are for a given society than
about what claims on your attention and on your action are made on
behalf of things. If society seems to impose itself on the "corporeal imagiunderstood
as socially transformative activity, then such activity is understood as constitutive
of materiality itself" (Butler, Bodies That Matter, p. 250).
24. Thus Nicholas Thomas writes: ''As socially and culturally salient entities, objects
change in defiance of their material stability. The category to which a thing belongs, the
emotion and judgment it prompts, and narrative it recalls, are all historically refigured"
(Nicholas Thomas, Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific
[Cambridge, Mass., 19911,p. 129).See also, for instance, The Social Life of Things, and Border
fetishism.^: Material Objects in Unstable Places, ed. Patricia Spyer (New York, 1998).
25. Njabulo S. Ndebele, "The Music of the Violin," in "Foo1s"and Other Stories (Johannesburg,
1983), p. 146.
10 Bill Brown Thing Theory
nation," when and how does that imagination struggle against the imposition,
and what role do things, physically or conceptually, play in the
struggle? How does the effort to rethink things become an effort to reinstitute
society? To declare that the character of things as things has been
extinguished, or that objects have been struck dumb, or that the idea of
respecting things no longer makes sense because they are vanishingthis
is to find in the fate of things a symptom of a pathological condition
most familiarly known as modernity.'"n "Everyday Life and the Culture
of the Thing" (1925),for instance, Boris Arvatov recognized that the revolution
had yet to effect a fundamental change in the most quotidian interactions
with the physical object world, the step of overcoming the
"rupture between Things and people that characterized bourgeois society,"
the step of achieving a newly "active contact" with the things in
Soviet society. If achieving that change meant both encouraging the "psyche"
to become "more thinglike" and "dynamiz[ingIflthe thing into something
"connected like a co-worker with human practice," then Arvatov
was imagining a novel reification of people and a new personification of
things that did not result (as it does in the Marxian script) from society's
saturation with the commodity form." Constructivist materialism sought
to recognize objects as participants in the reshaping of the world: "Our
things in our hands," Aleksandr Rodchenko claimed, "must be equals,
comrade^."'^ The women of the Constructivist movement, designing and
manufacturing postrevolutionary clothes, came as close as anyone, Christina
Kiaer argues (pp. 185-243), to integrating "socialist objects" within
the world of consumable goods. In the Italian "romance" that Jeffrey
Schnapp reconstructs (pp. 244-69), this politicization of things is inverted
into the materialization of politics, the effort to fuse national and
physical form. The call to "organize aluminum" on behalf of the fascist
state accompanies the declaration that aluminum is the "autarchic metal
of choice," the "Italian metal" par excellence. Materialism, these days,
may appear in the name of-or as the name of-politics, but these cases
exhibit a more intense effort to deploy material goods on behalf of a political
agenda.
Beyond the boundaries of Soviet Russia, the conscious effort to
26. See Georg Lukacs, History and Class Consciousness: Studiesin ~VarxzstDialectics, trans.
Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, Mass., 1971),p. 92; Siegfried Kracauer, "Farewell to the
Linden ;\rcade," The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays, trans. and ed. Thomas Y. Levin (Cambridge,
Mass., 1995), p. 342; and Hans-Georg Gadamer, "The Nature of Things and the
~ a n g u a ~ e ~ermeneutks,trans. and ed. David E. ~ i n g e - ( ~ e r k e l e ~ ,of ~hin~s,"~~hilosophical
1976),p. 71.
27. Boris Arvatov, "Everyday Life and the Culture of the Thing (Toward the Formulation
of the Question)," trans. Christina Kiaer, October, no. 81 (Summer 1997): 121, 124, 126.
See Kiaer's important introduction to the piece, "Boris Xrvatov's Socialist Objects," October,
no. 81 (Summer 1997): 105-18.
28. Quoted in Kiaer, "Kodchenko in Paris," October, no. 75 (Winter 1996):3. I want to
thank Susan Buck-Morss for drawing my attention to this essay.
11Critical Inquiry Autumn 2001
achieve greater intimacy with things, and to exert a different determination
for them, took place, most famously and at times comically, within
the surrealist avant-garde. Among the various experimental "novelties"
that would unify "thought with the object" through some "direct contact
with the object," Salvador Dali "dream[ed] of a mysterious manuscript
written in white ink and completely covering the strange, firm surfaces
of a brand-new Roll-Royce."29Although words and things have long been
considered deadly rivals, as Peter Schwenger details (pp. 99-1 13), Dali
had faith that they could be fused and that "everyone" would "be able to
read from things."g0When Andri. Breton first dreamed up surrealism, he
did so by trying to make good on a dream. He dreamed of finding a book
at a flea market, a book with a wooden statue of an Assyrian gnome as its
spine, and with pages made of black wool. "I hastened to acquire it," he
writes, "and when I woke up I regretted not finding it near me." Still, he
hoped "to put a few objects like this in cir~ulation."~'
By transforming the bricolage of the dreamwork into the practice of
everyday life, the surrealists registered their refusal to occupy the world
as it was. Walter Benjamin claimed they were "less on the trail of the
psyche than on the track of things," acting less as psychoanalysts than as
anthropologists. In "Dream Kitsch," he fuses the surrealist invigoration
of cultural debris with the movement's own invigoration from "tribal artifacts."
He describes them seeking "the totemic tree of objects within the
thicket of primal history. The very last, the topmost face on the totem
pole, is that of kitsch." Though this image visualizes the animation projected
on to or into the "outlived world of things," the essay concludes by
describing the process in reverse, describing how "in kitsch, the world of
things advances on the human being" and "ultimately fashions its figures
in his interior."" Subjects may constitute objects, but within Benjamin's
materialism things have already installed themselves in the human
psyche.
29. Salvador Dali, "The Object as Revealed in Surrealist Experiment" (1931),in Theories
of Modern Art, ed. Herschel B. Chipp (Berkeley, 1968),p. 424.
30. Ibid.
31. Andre Breton, Introduction au dzscours sur le peu de rialzti (1927),which he quotes
(dating it 1924, the year of his originating surrealist manifesto), in "Surrealist Situation of
the Object" (1939),Manifestoes of Surrealzsm, trans. Richard Seaver and Helen R. Lane (Ann
Arbor, Mich., 1972),p. 277.
32. Walter Benjamin, "Dream Kitsch" (1927),trans. Howard Eiland, Selected Wrztings,
trans. Rodney Livingston et al., ed. Michael Jennings, Eiland, and Gary Smith, 2 vols. to
date (Cambridge, Mass., 1999), 2:4. In "Several Points on Folk Art," he writes that "art
teaches us to see into things. Folk art and kitsch allow us to look out through things." But
this act of looking though things depends on the human application of them as though they
were a mask fused to the sensorium (Benjamin, "Einiges zur Volkskunst," Gesammelte Schrqten,
ed. Rolf Tiedemann and Herman Schweppenhauser, 7 in 14 vols. [Frankfurt am Main,
1972-891, 6:187; trans. Darren Ilett). See also Benjamin, "Surrealism: The Last Snapshot
of the European Intelligentsia," trans. Edmund Jephcott, Selected Writings, 2:207-21. In all
these essays, Benjamin is developing an image of "innervation," a term he uses to describe
12 Bill Brown Thing Theory
"Formal truths" about how things are part and parcel of society's
institution hardly help to explain the ways that things have been recast
in the effort to achieve some confrontation with, and transformation of,
society. Because Benjamin devoted himself to such explanations he assumes
particular authority in the following pages. Among the other writers
invoked in this special issue, Bruno Latour exerts no less influence;
he has forcefully and repeatedly insisted that "things do not exist without
being full of people" and that considering humans necessarily involves
the consideration of things. The subject/object dialectic itself (with which
he simply has no truck) has obscured patterns of circulation, transference,
translation, and displa~ement.~~Latour has argued that modernity
artificially made an ontological distinction between inanimate objects and
human subjects, whereas in fact the world is full of "quasi-objects" and
"quasi-subjects," terms he borrows from Michel S e r r e ~ . ~ ~Benjamin makes
it clear that the avant-garde worked to make that fact known; modernism's
resistance to modernity is its effort to deny the distinction between
subjects and objects, people and things. Yet modernism's own "discourse
of things," as John Frow calls it (pp. 270-85), is far from consistent in
what it reveals as the source of their animation.
If modernism, when struggling to integrate the animate and the inanimate,
humans and things, always knew that we have never been modern,
this hardly means that you should accept such knowledge as afait
accompli. Indeed, Theodor Adorno, arguing against epistemology's and
phenomenology's subordination of the object and the somatic moment to
a fact of consciousness, understood the alterity of things as an essentially
ethical fact. Most simply put, his point is that accepting the otherness of
things is the condition for accepting otherness as such.2"
the mimetic internalization of the physical world-eventually the internalization of technological
apparatuses. See Miriam Bratu Hansen, "Benjamin and Cinema: Not a One-Way
Street," Crztzcal Inquiry 25 (Winter 1999): 306-43.
33. Bruno Latour, "The Berlin Key or HOWto DOWords with Things," trans. Lydia
Davis, in Matter, Materiality, and Modern Culture, ed. l? M. Graves-Brown (London,2000),pp.
10, 20.
34. See Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, trans. Catherine Porter (Cambridge,
Mass., 1993),pp. 10-11. For a history outside the realm of sociology, see Miguel Tamen,
Frzends of Interpretable Objects (Cambridge, Mass., 2000), and Tiffany, Toy Medium.
35. See Theodor 11:.4dorno, Negatzve Dialectics, trans. E. B. Ashton (New York, 1997),
pp. 189-94; see also p. 16. Unlikely as it seems, it would be possible to relate this claim to
the way that, for Lacan, the Thing proves to be the center around which the drive achieves
its ethical force.
Critical Inquiry Autumn 2001 13
When, shortly after the millennium turned, I told an art historian
that I was working on things and editing a special issue of CriticalInquiry,
she responded by saying: "Ah, well: it's the topic of the 1990s the way
it was of 1920s, isn't it?"36This first felt like an unwitting accusation of
belatedness (in the year 2000), and it did so because the academic psyche
has internalized the fashion system (a system meant to accelerate the obsolescence
of things).Still, if Benjamin was able to outstep the avant-garde
in the 1920s by conceptualizing the "revolutionary energies" of surrealism's
materialist bri~olage,~'this was in part because of the sociological
ground cleared by Simmel's earlier account of the gap between the "culture
of things" and modernity's human subject, and because of his insistence
that the subject's desire, and not productive labor, is the source of
an object's value.98Benjamin recognized that the gap between the function
of objects and the desires congealed there became clear only when
those objects became outmoded. "Things" seems like a topic of the nineties
as it was of the twenties because the outmoded insights of the twenties
(insights of Benjamin, of Bataille, of O'Keefe, among others) were reinvig~rated.~~Among
those insights, we learn that history is exactly the
currency that things trade in and that obsolescence as an accusation,
whenever it represses its own history, is utterly pass6. "Things" seems like
a topic of the 1990s no less because, as the twentieth century drew to
a close, it became clear that certain objects-Duchamp's Fountain, Man
Ray's Object to Be Destroyed, Jospeh Beuys's Fat Chair-kept achieving new
novelty and that some modes of artistic production that foreground object
culture more than image culture (mixed-media collage, the readymade,
the objet trouve')would persevere, however updated.40
But what decade of the century didn't have its own thing about
things? Given Heidegger's lecture on "Das Ding" in 1950 and Lacan's
36. Although things may seem to have achieved a new prominence, I want to point
out that Modern Starts: People, Places, Tlzings, ed. John Elderfield et al. (exhibition catalog,
Museum of Modern Art, New York, 7 Oct. 1999-14 Mar. 2000) symptomatically diminished
things in relation to place and to people. In the exhibition catalogue, things receive only
58 (of 360) pages of attention.
37. Benjamin, "Surrealism," 2:210.
38. Simmel, "The Future of Our Culture" (1909),Simrnel on Culture,trans. Mark Ritter
and Frisby, ed. Frisby and Mike Featherstone (London, 1997), p. 101. By complicating the
ideas he formulated in the 1890s, Simmel's best students-Lukics, Bloch, Benjamin, and
Kracauer-achieved insights about the "culture of things" that continue to inspire some of
today's most ambitious cultural analysis.
39. See, for instance, Michael Taussig, Mzmesis and Alterity: A Partzcular History of the
Senses (New York, 1993),pp. 232-33; Yve-Alain Bois and Rosalind Krauss, Formless: A User:
Guide (Cambridge, Mass., 1997);and Il'anda M. Corn, The GreatArnerican Thing: Modern Art
and ~VationalIdentity, 1915-1 935 (Berkeley, 1999).
40. See, for instance, Benjamin H. D. Buchloh's account ofXrman's work of the 1950s
in relation to the paradigm of the readymade, Neo-Avant-garde and Culture Industry: Essays
on European and American Artfrorn 1955to 1975 (Cambridge, Mass., 2000), pp. 269-79.
14 Bill Brown Thing Theory
location of the Thing at and as the absent center of the real in 1959;given
Frank O'Hara's declaration that "the eagerness of objects to 1be what we
are afraid to do / cannot help but move us" in 1951,41Robert Rauschenberg's
interruption of abstract expressionism, and the chosisme of the decade's
nouveau roman, the postwar era looks like an era both overwhelmed
by the proliferation of things and singularly attentive to them. Only belatedly,
in the 1980s, did Baudrillard declare that just as modernity was the
historical scene of the subject's emergence, so postmodernity is the scene
of the object's preponderance. If a genealogy of things has yet to be written,
there's still a patent conceptual geology where simple elements appear
in multiple layers-the scandal of the surrealist veneration of
detritus reasserted in Claes Oldenburg's claim that a "refuse lot in the city
is worth all the art stores in the world," and the scandal of the readymade
resurfacing as the very different scandal of pop art in work like Oldenburg's
best-known oversized and understuffed everyday objects: the
mixer, the cheeseburger, the light bulb, the ice cream cone, the telephone,
the wall s ~ i t c h . ~ '
Since his exhibition at the Green Gallery in New York, 1962, through
which he transformed himself from a dramaturg of happenings to the
most noteworthy pop sculptor (as the stage sets for the happenings were
disassembled into distinct works), Oldenberg has re-created, with relentless
consistency, the iconic objects of everyday life. Donald Judd called
Oldenburg's objects "grossly anthropomorphized.""" Indeed, they are invariably
and teasingly mammary, ocular, phallic, facial, scrotal. But the
very "blatancy," asJudd went on to argue, seems to ridicule anthropomorphism
as In the same way, the grossly mimetic character of the
work draws attention to the discrepancy between objectivity and materiality,
perception and sensation, objective presence (a fan, a Fudgsicle, a
sink) and material presence (the canvas, the plaster of paris, the vinyl), as
though to theatricalize the point that all objects (not things) are, first off,
iconic signs. (A sink looks like a sink.)
Despite the enormousness and enormity of objective culture in Oldenburg's
world, it has somehow lost its potency. In the presence of his
monumentally flaccid objects, it is difficult not to suffer some vague feel-
41. Frank O'Hara, "Interior (IVithJane)," The Collected Poems of Frank O'Hara, ed. Donald
Allen (New York, 1971),11. 1-3, p. 55. For the material context of such attention in postwar
France-that is, the sudden proliferation of American objects-see Kristin Ross, Fast
Cars, Clean Bodzn: Decolonzultzon and the Reordering of French Culture (Cambridge, Mass., 1996).
Georges Perec's Les Choses: Une Histoire des anndes sozxante (Paris, 1965) may have restored a
Balzacian mise-en-sckne to the novel, but decor became the scene of depletion, an arrangement
of empty signs, which is why the arrangement was such an inspiration for Baudrillard's
System of Objects, trans. James Benedict (1968; New kbrk, 1996).
42. Quoted by Barbara Rose, Claes Oldenbu~g(New kbrk, 1970),p. 46.
43. Donald Judd, "Specific Objects" (1965),Complete Wrztzngs, 1959-1975 (New York,
1975),p. 189.
44. Ibid.
15Critical Inquiry Autumn 2001
ing of loss, as though they were half-deflated balloons, lingering in the
ballroom two days after the party, hovering at eye level, now, and rather
worn out. Finally allowed to relax, tojust be themselves, objects sink into
themselves, weary of form; they consider sinking into an amorphous
heap, submitting to the idkefixe of gravity. Oldenburg's work may be melodramatic
and sentimental, as Michael Fried declared in 1962, but it is
also about melodrama and sentiment, meant to pose some question about,
by physically manifesting the affective investment Americans have in the
hamburger, the ice cream cone, chocolate ~ a k e . ~ W h yhave we turned
the cheeseburger into a totemic food, a veritable member of the family, a
symbolof the national clan?Though art may seem to be, most fundamentally,
"a projection of our mental images upon the world of things," this
is art that instead shows how weary that world has become of all our
projecti~ns.~Vfthese objects are tired, they are tired of our perpetual
reconstitution of them as objects of our desire and of our affection. They
are tired of our longing. They are tired of us.
But a recent work of Oldenburg's, his TypewriterEraser, gleams in the
new sculpture garden outside the National Gallery in Washington D.C.
Unlike his myriad soft objects, the eraser is pert, it is rigid, it is full of life
and stands at attention, if slightlyaskew,its chrome as bright as the typical
typewriter eraser was always dirty and dull. The pleasure of looking at
the people looking at the Typewriter Eraser, amused by its monumentality,
is inseparable from the pleasure of listening to the child who, befuddled
by an anachronistic object she never knew, pleads: "What is that thing
supposed to be?" What is this disk with the brush sticking out of it? What
was a typewriter? How did that form ever function? The plea expresses
the power of this particular work to dramatize a generational divide and
to stage (tomelodramatize, even) the question of obsolescence. While the
"timeless" objects in the Oldenburg canon (fans and sinks) have gone
limp, this abandoned object attains a new stature precisely because it has
no life outside the boundary of art-no life, that is, within our everyday
lives.Released from the bond of being equipment, sustained outsidethe irreversibility
of technological history, the object becomes something else.4i
If, to the student of Oldenburg, the eraser ironically comments on
the artist's own obsession with typewriters, it more simply transforms a
45. See Michael Fried, "New York Letter," in Pop Art: A Critical History, ed. Steven
Henry Madoff (Berkeley, 1997), p. 216; Oldenburg's aggressive consciousness of his sentimentality
is suggested by the "nougat" in the following statement from his manifesto: "I am
for the art of rust and mold. I am for the art of hearts, funeral hearts or sweetheart hearts,
full of nougat. I am for the art of worn meathooks, and singing barrels of red, white, blue
and yellow meat" (Claes Oldenburg, "Statement" [1961], in Pop Art, p. 215).
46. Rudolf.-Zmheim, "Art among the Objects," CriticalInquiry 13 (Summer 1987):679.
47. Heidegger taxonomizes things into mere things (such as pebbles), equipment, and
work (such as art). Much of pop art, of course, works to elide such distinctions. See Heidegger,
"The Origin of the Work of .kt," Poetry, Language, Thought, pp. 15-88.
16 Bill Broutn Thing Theory
dead commodity into a livingwork and thus shows how inanimate objects
organize the temporality of the animate world. W. J. T. Mitchell makes it
clear (pp. 167-84) that the discovery of a new kind of object in the eighteenth
century, the fossil, enabled romanticism to recognize and to refigure
its relation to the mortal limits of the natural world. In the case of
the Oldenburg eraser, the present, which is the future that turned this
object into a thing of the past, is the discourse network 2000, where the
typewriter eraser has disappeared, not just into the self-correcting Selectric,
but into the delete function. How, Oldenburg's objects seem to
ask, will the future of your present ever understand our rhetoric of inscription,
erasure, and the trace?48
As a souvenir from the museum of twentieth-century history, the
TypewriterEraser reminds us that if the topic of things attained a new urgency
in the closing decades of that century, this may have been a response
to the digitization of our world-just as, perhaps, the urgency in
the 1920swas a response to film. But in the twenties the cinema provided
a projection screen that didn't separate people and things but brought
them closer, granting props the status of individuals, enabling neglected
objects to assume their rightful value.49As Lesley Stern puts it (pp. 317-
54), things can grab our attention on film; and they do so because they
have become notjust objects but actions. New media-perspectival painting,
printing, telegraphy-each in its way newly mediates the relation between
people and objects, each precipitates distance and proximity.
You could say that today's children were born too late to understand
this memorial to another mode of writing, or you could say that Oldenburg
(cleverly)re-created the object too late for it to be generally understood.
It is an object that helps to dramatize a basic disjunction, a human
condition in which things inevitably seem too late-belated, in fact, because
we want things to come before ideas, before theory, before the
word, whereas they seem to persist in coming after: as the alternative to
ideas, the limit to theory, victims of the word. If thinking the thing, to
borrow Heidegger's phrase, feels like an exercise in belatedness, the feeling
is provoked by our very capacity to imagine that thinking and thingness
are distinct.
48. On the new tropes provided by new media, see the closing chapter of Eric Jager,
The Book of the Heart (Chicago, 2000).
49. See Benjamin, "The \Vork of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Illurninatzons,
trans. Harry Zohn, ed. Hannah Arendt (New York, 1969),pp. 217-51; Jean Epstein,
"Bonjour CinPma and Other \\iitings by Jean Epstein," trans. Tom Milne, Afterimage 10 (.4utumn
1981): 19;and Fernand Leger, Functions of Painting, trans. Alexandra Anderson (New
York, 1965),p. 50. For an account of how assessments of early cinema obsess about the new
magical bestowed on objects, see Rachel 0.Moore, Savage Theory:Cinema as Modern
Magic (Durham, N.C., 2000).
Claes Oldenburg,T m e r Eraser, 1999.Washington, D.C. Photo: Kandice Chuh.
m a t s
ems
c q strevt
crederuas
credlt cards
credns
cremmck sveaters
cnbbage boards
cnbs
crochet hwhs
crockery
crockwts
croquet sets
crosses
crossword puzzles
cro*bars
croms
Cruclflres
cruse control
cruse ships
crutches
cryostats
crystal
crystal balls
cubicles
cuckw clocks
cuff llnks
cuffs
Culottes
cummelbunds
CUP holders
cupboards
cups
curbs
cunos
curlers
curltng Irons
currency
Currtcula
Curtaln rods
curtains
cush~ons
CUtlCle Creams
CUflCle nippers
cutlery
cvtttng boards
cymbals
dams
dances
dashboards
day planners
dead bolts
debutante balls
debuts
decanters
decqs
deep fat fryers
defenses
deltcatessens
demonstrat~ons
dens
dental crams
denml flosses
dentures
deodorants
deplatorles
dewsn 511~5
dewts
derbles
derncks
desks
desserts
detergents
dRlOt~onals
dladems
dlagrams
dlabls machlnes
dlapers 18
diaphragms
dlarles
dlce
d~ctlonarles
diets
dlgltal cameras
dikes
dildos
dimmers
dlngh~es
dining rooms
dlnners
dioramas
dlrectorles
di5c0 balls
dl5c0S
dtshes
dishwashers
dtsks
dispensers
display stands
displays
dtssertattons
diving bells
docks
dog collars
dog dlshes
doghouses
doilhes
dollhouses
doll~es
dolls
domes
dominoes
donut shops
d o n m
door knockers
door stops
doorbells
dOOrknObS
&ormats
h r s
dormltorles
dwnswuts
dram
dramas
drapes
dramr pulls
dreldelS
dress patterns
dressers
dresses
dressings
dnll blts
dnll presses
dnlls
dnnklng fountains
drive t r a m
drlveviays
drugs 39
drugstores
drums
dry erase boards
dry erase pens
drywall
dune buggles
dustpans
duvets
DVD players
DVDs
dynamos
earpleces
earmuffs
earrlngs
ears
eggs 49
electric chalrs
electr~ftedfences
electrocardlagraphs
electronlc games 20
elevators
embro~deryhoops
emergency brakes
emergency exits
emery boards
encyclopedias
englnes
engravtngs
envelopes
epaulets
erasers
escalators
espresso makers
exams
exercise machlnes
exerctses
exhaust pipes
exh~b~t~ons
experiments
explosives
extension cords
extens~ons
eyeglasses
eyelash curlers
qelets
eyellner
eyes
eyeshado*
fabncs
fabnc softeners
facellns
faceplates
falrs
fake nalls
famllles
fan bets
fans
faucets
fax machlnes 44
feather dusters
fedoras
feedbags
ferries
ferrls wheels
fertlllzers
festivals
fezzes
flgur~nes
files
flll~ngs
film
fire extlnguishels
flre hoses
fire hydrants
fireplaces
f~reworks
flrlng ranges
first ald klts
f1Sh f e x
ftsh tanks
flshlng hooks
flshlng lures
flshlng rods
f~xtures
flags
flash bulbs
flasks
flters
flies
fll~flops
fltppers
floor plans
flwrtng
flotation dev~ces
flowr arrangements
flowr pots
flowrs
flues
flutes
fly swatters
tog lights
foghorns
folders
foldtng chairs
fondue pots
fonts 46
From I blcer (exhibition catalog, .-\IG.-\ \latiorla1 Design Conference,
23-26 Sept 2001, TGshington, D.C.),p. 3.
COVERPHOTO-A drop of glycerol (a liquid with a viscosity one thousand times
-eater than that ofwater)breaking apartinside anotherfluid, PDMS, of the same viscosity
: the glycerol.Photo: Sidney R. Nagel and Itai Cohen.