Mass Production as an Academic Imaginary (or, if more must be said of Marcel, “Evacuating Duchampian Conjecture in the Age of Recursive Scholarship”)
Mass Production as an Academic Imaginary (or, if more must be said of Marcel, “Evacuating Duchampian Conjecture in the Age of Recursive Scholarship”)
复制标题
作为学术想象的大规模生产（或者，如果必须更多地谈论马塞尔，“在递归学术时代消除杜尚猜想”）
DOI：
10.2752/174967813x13806265666654
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ezra Shales
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ezra Shales
作为对约翰·罗伯茨在本期文章（《时间性、批判和容器传统》）的回应，本文反对他将马桶或小便器的制造描述为“后肛门”。卫生纸仍然是由活人手工制作的，他们一件一件地组装沉重的石膏模具，倒液体，然后用刮刀和海绵完成。罗伯茨对“异化的工厂手工艺形式下的手工劳动危机”的看法是一种非历史性的叙述，它出自约翰·罗斯金和卡尔·马克思敏锐的诗意之笔，在当代学术界（例如理查德·森尼特和霍华德·里萨蒂）的悲歌中继续存在。这篇文章建立在那些主张对特定材料的熟练生产和机械化历史进行细致入微的研究的学者的基础上（例如Isobel Armstrong，Peter Dormer和Michael Ettema分别对玻璃，纺织品和木材进行了细致入微的研究）。它提出，研究车间里被边缘化的声音和未经审查的观点比继续争论艺术天才的有限基因库或发明的流派（如“容器”）更有价值。
Abstract As a response to John Roberts' article in this issue (“Temporality, Critique, and the Vessel Tradition”), this essay argues against his description of toilet or urinal manufacture as “postartisanal.” Sanitaryware is still made by living people who manually rig up heavy plaster molds piece by piece, pour liquid slip, and athletically finish them with scrapers and sponges. Roberts' sighting of a “crisis of artisanal labor in the alienated form of factory handcraft” is an ahistorical narrative that, having issued forth from the keenly poetic pens of John Ruskin and Karl Marx, lives on in contemporary academic jeremiads (for example, Richard Sennett and Howard Risatti). This essay builds on scholars who argue for nuanced examinations of the histories of skilled production and mechanization that are material-specific (such as Isobel Armstrong, Peter Dormer, and Michael Ettema on glass, textiles, and wood, respectively). It proposes that there is greater value in researching the marginalized voices and unexamined perspectives of the shop floor than in continuing to wrangle over circumscribed gene pools of artistic genius or invented genres such as “the vessel.”