(Complex) Subject / (Disobedient) Object
I have always been grateful that I work on the eighteenth century. It is a period sufficiently recent to have a useable number of sources, presenting neither the agonising gaps of the Medieval period, nor the overwhelming archives of the twentieth century. The perfect porridge temperature for Goldilocks. But it is also reassuring in its distance, history has (we hope) moved on sufficiently from the eighteenth century to allow us to reflect objectively on its events and outcomes, and to see its legacies clearly and calmly. The emotive quality of its objects is exciting rather than alarming.
This reassurance was brought home to me last week on visiting the V&A's thought-provoking Disobedient Objects exhibition. This display is both striking and unsettling, attempting to tell the story of civil unrest and resistance through the use of objects by the movements involved. On show are banners, shields, placards, pamphlets, posters, vehicles, paint cans, movie footage, jewellery, masks, lock-on devices, letters, ceramics and much more. The everyday materials that can make world-changing statements is a powerful point of the exhibition. A nice touch as you enter (or exit) points out how the entrance wall resembles barricades, and what changing symbolism these large objects have had in the history of resistance.
The display is both evocative and, I thought, slightly overwhelming, combining a forest of scaffolding poles (/railings/ barriers/ prison bars) from floor to ceiling, with chipboard text panels, hanging banners and myriad screens. The objects and narratives are arranged broadly thematically, mixing a complete range of locations and time periods. A striking visualisation at the heart of the display shows the changing pattern of resistance reported by the press from the 1970s to now. I'd have liked to see it at the beginning.
I found the exhibition deeply interesting, with some extraordinary objects, but left feeling uneasy. Many of the resistance movements showcased are ongoing, and the vast majority of the objects involved seem to have been lent by activists, potentially returning to the fray when the show closes. To the curator's credit, a space in the exhibition is left blank with the explanation 'New movements will grow during this exhibition. This space is held for future disobedient objects'. Interestingly, it remains empty.
But how do you deal with discussion of resistance in Palestine or Syria in the context of today? I don't know how to think about the exhibition as a product and process, the objects involved as sources to interrogate, divorced from their complex and raw subject. The curators involved clearly have a personal engagement with the subject, and I am left wondering if that would have made the exhibition work more for me: an openly subjective approach to the objects.