Same Report, New Pictures of Display Production Process.

Objects and Exhibitions Group Project Report, Group One.

Group Members: Shahram Agha-Kasiri‎, Jennifer Chow, Elizabeth Cooper, Kristin Hussey‎, Kirstin James, ‎Tania ‎Moore, Sally Thelwell‎, Meng Zou‎.

Location: Mansfield Cooper, ground floor, behind a café, in front of the elevators.

Exhibition Schedule: 15 November, 2010 to 21 November, 2010.

Display Title: Do You Fake It?

Our group is interested in the notion of tolerance; the extent to which society accepts fakes, copies, and forgeries, in what contexts it accepts these fakes, and why. Our goal is to raise awareness of the visitor concerning the impact of the knock offs industry with regards to social justice. We will be using six to ten objects, including bags, belts, a pair of earrings, two watches, and DVDs, all of which are examples of popular knockoffs.

Our approach is functionalist and analytic; we are using the objects to make a point about the social implications of the knockoff industry. By using the design theme of a shop front window, and very popular, frequently copied objects, juxtaposed with the cost in human terms, we hope to create a link between the purchase of counterfeit goods and various forms of violence. The approach is primarily maieutic; by posing the title question “Do You Fake It” and supporting that question with sales signs representing how much money is made and what the money funds, the visitor’s own experience will draw forth a better understanding of the social dynamics, rather than imposing upon the visitor an overt directive as to what they should think and feel.

We have chosen an emphatic organisation—to place objects in juxtaposition to images of where the money goes, and the conditions that the production of knockoffs fosters. We are also choosing a typological taxonomy, clustering the objects together as “accessories,” “jewelry,” and  “technology”. The overall aesthetic is the impression of a shop front, employing multiple levels of display support, and strategically placed ‘sales/bargain’ signs.

We have all had input into various parts of the process, each member simultaneously contributing in the way(s) that they best can, given their primary interests and/or strengths, while also contributing to a group decision making process. In addtion to the display itself, we have created an online blog with related social media options. Though there was not sufficient time to ‘create a buzz’ we were/are able to use these digtial ancilliaries as a means of providing the visiting public with further information regarding the topic of our display, as well as citation for resources and research that inspired us in the design process. We have also posted meeting minutes, photos of our efforts, and examples of text drafting.

Blog/Website URL: www.dyfiproject.wordpress.com

Photo Credits: Top: Mysterious-Stranger-in-Gym-Suit. Middle: Meng Zou. Bottom: Meng Zou.

Production Day Photos by Meng Zou!

The display is up, and photos of the production day are available at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/centre4museology/

Versions of these images as a set are also available at the DYFI Flickr page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54756904@N02/sets/72157625282344081/

Slideshow coming soon . . . Thank you!

The Project Proposal Report

Objects and Exhibitions Group Project Report, Group One.

Group Members: Shahram Agha-Kasiri‎, Jennifer Chow, Elizabeth Cooper, Kristin Hussey‎, Kirstin James, ‎Tania ‎Moore, Sally Thelwell‎, Meng Zou‎.

Location: Mansfield Cooper, ground floor, behind a café, in front of the elevators.

Exhibition Schedule: 15 November, 2010 to 21 November, 2010.

Display Title: Do You Fake It?

Our group is interested in the notion of tolerance; the extent to which society accepts fakes, copies, and forgeries, in what contexts it accepts these fakes, and why. Our goal is to raise awareness of the visitor concerning the impact of the knock offs industry with regards to social justice. We will be using six to ten objects, including bags, belts, a pair of earrings, two watches, and DVDs, all of which are examples of popular knockoffs.

Our approach is functionalist and analytic; we are using the objects to make a point about the social implications of the knockoff industry. By using the design theme of a shop front window, and very popular, frequently copied objects, juxtaposed with the cost in human terms, we hope to create a link between the purchase of counterfeit goods and various forms of violence. The approach is primarily maieutic; by posing the title question “Do You Fake It” and supporting that question with sales signs representing how much money is made and what the money funds, the visitor’s own experience will draw forth a better understanding of the social dynamics, rather than imposing upon the visitor an overt directive as to what they should think and feel.

We have chosen an emphatic organisation—to place objects in juxtaposition to images of where the money goes, and the conditions that the production of knockoffs fosters. We are also choosing a typological taxonomy, clustering the objects together as “accessories,” “jewelry,” and  “technology”. The overall aesthetic is the impression of a shop front, employing multiple levels of display support, and strategically placed ‘sales/bargain’ signs.

We have all had input into various parts of the process, each member simultaneously contributing in the way(s) that they best can, given their primary interests and/or strengths, while also contributing to a group decision making process. In addtion to the display itself, we have created an online blog with related social media options. Though there was not sufficient time to ‘create a buzz’ we were/are able to use these digtial ancilliaries as a means of providing the visiting public with further information regarding the topic of our display, as well as citation for resources and research that inspired us in the design process. We have also posted meeting minutes, photos of our efforts, and examples of text drafting.

Blog/Website URL: www.dyfiproject.wordpress.com

Review of the Course Readings

In addition to this project, we as a group have been reading articles cogent to exhibition design, production, and sustainablity:

Summation of Discussions of Readings for Objects and Exhibitions

Week One: Objects and Interpretation

Pearce, Susan M. (1992) Museums, Objects and Collections, A Cultural Study. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Chapter 2 (‘Objects Inside and Outside Museums’), pp 15-35.

Kopytoff, I (1986) ‘The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process’ in Appaduai, Arjun (1986), The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bibliography, pp. 64-91

Concluding point(s): We considered the meaning of ‘materiality’ in terms of the ‘life of the object’. Some of our group were especially interested in the concept of ‘home’ and the way in which objects create a familiar frame of reference. There was some consternation about authorial voice on page 27 of the Pearce reading: “Conversely, we sum up the owners of rooms . . . and rightly so, since character is what these things constitute” which seemed a very arguable conclusion! We did not come to consensus on this subject.  There was also some consternation about the methodology, but since the workshops had gone over this practice, we didn’t not go over this for very long. The Kopytoff did not inspire much conflict, but was considered a thoughtful treatment. Of greatest value was the rather strong conclusion concerning the “drive to discriminate, classify, compare and sacralize” the ‘uncertainty of identity’ and the notion that societies “construct objects as they construct people”.

Week Two: Conservation and Authenticity

Peters, R. and D. Romanek (2008) ‘Approaches to Access: Factors and Variables’, in Saunders, D., Townsend, J. (eds) IIC London Congress: Conservation and Access, London: James & James, pp. 1-6.

Jones, M. (1994) ‘Why fakes?’ in Pearce, S. M. Interpreting objects & collections, Leicester: Leicester University Press, pp. 92-97.

Concluding point(s): Everyone really enjoyed the Peters and Romanek article. The points regarding catalysts for change, nexus for conservation, and the case examples within the focus sections on conservation/access to material, form, and function were all very interesting and maintained reader attention. In Jones, counterfeit goods manufacture and distribution is a business; fakes reflect what society wants most—what sells. These priorities change over time—but fakes can be a good indication of what was/is literally and figuratively of value to any given society at any given time. This was a very animated discussion.

Week Three: Text and Conservation

Coxall, H.  (2006) ‘Open minds: Inclusive practice’, Museum Philosophy for the 21^st century, Altamira Press/ University of Nebraska

Concluding point(s): In general, what we think we communicate as museum text writers, and what we actually communicate as museum text writers are two different things. Inclusive text is easier aspired to than accomplished, but increasing awareness of the cultural and social dimensions of meaning is critical for good text. Aiming for a conversational tone is important. It was a thought-provoking article.

Week Four: Exhibitions and Display

Bouquet, M. (2001) ‘The Art of Exhibition Making as a problem of Translation’ in Bouquet, M. (ed.) Academic Anthropology and the Museum, New York: Berghahn, pp. 177-197

Ferguson, Bruce W. (1995) “Exhibition Rhetorics: Material Speech and Utter Sense’ in R. Greenberg, B.W. Ferguson and S. Nairne (eds.) Thinking about exhibitions, London: Routledge, pp. 126-136

Concluding point(s): In Bouquet, the primary contention in group discussion concerned preferences to how Asad put the concept of translation, and how Callon uses it. Callon was somewhat preferred, due to the apparent clarity and practical application of his interpretation—there is immediacy to his analysis of the steps that go into creation of coherent narrative. Everyone also found the article’s discussion of an exhibition as a composite artefact quite interesting. In the Ferguson piece, it was noted that most of the group had very little previous study of ‘architectonics’. The group swiftly moved on to a discussion of ‘exhibition as institutional utterance’ and of how to gainfully apply the questioning procedure of who speaks for whom, under what conditions, where, and when, to our own project design.

---

Meeting Minutes for Past Six Meetings.

Minutes of the 1^st Meeting of Group 1 AGMS 61061 course
September 27^th 2010, 3pm MC 4.10

Present:

Mr. Shahram Agha-Kasiri

Ms. Jennifer Chow (Secretary/Chair)

Ms. Elizabeth Cooper

Ms. Kristin Hussey

Ms. Kirstin ‘Stena’ James

Ms. Tania Moore

Ms. Sally Thelwell

Ms. Meng Zou

The meeting was called to order at 3:05pm

[Ms. Jennifer Chow volunteered to take the minutes for our meetings--Thank you, Jennifer! ~KAJ]

1. Topic

-       Topic: Copies, Fakes and Forgeries

-       Other information: We are given a small budget to work on our display

-       Meeting every Monday 3:00pm at MC4.10 fixed

2. Things discussed during meeting

-       Possible topics

o    Context of what is fake

o    Return of authentic pieces to original country

o    Showcase of forged artefact due to special circumstances

o    Why do people fake things

o    Tolerance level of fakery and forgeries in the consumerism world today

-       Improbable topics

o    Digital

o    Art pieces

o    Architecture

-       Ideals for our display cabinet

o    Clean

o    Nicely spaced out artefacts

o    No clutter

-       Possible comparisons in objects

o    Vitamin C tablets/Orange

o    Hellmann mayo/miracle whip

o    Head and shoulder/ASDA shampoo

-       Questions to ponder upon

o    Does fakery really matter?

o    What are our own tolerances?

3. Report from members

Please prepare the following for next week:

-       Key points, issues, reflections and questions for next week’s reading to support our topic (if applicable)

-       Personal tolerance level of what is considered as acceptable in a copied object/product/etc.

-       Possible comparative objects for display

-       Ideas on how to decorate display case

-       Ways in which we can interact with the public through our display

4. Date of next meeting

The date of the next meeting will be on October 4^th, 3:00pm.

5. Adjournment

Jennifer made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 pm

Minutes of the 2^nd Meeting of Group 1 AGMS 61061 course
October 04^th 2010, 11AM Burlington Society

Present:

Ms. Jennifer Chow (Secretary/Chair)

Mr. Shahram Agha-Kasiri

Ms. Kristin Hussey

Ms. Meng Zou

Ms. Elizabeth Cooper

Ms. Tania Moore

Ms. Kirstin ‘Stena’ James

Regrets:

Ms. Sally Thelwell
The meeting was called to order at 11:12am

1. Group Discussion

-          Article discussed: Spectrum

-          Concluding points

o    Advantage: a uniform system that is adapted by all museum, thus greater efficiency and less hassle in learning multiple cataloguing systems

o    Disadvantage: museums with their own working system will need to invest and learn a completely different system to ‘fit in’

2. Things discussed during meeting

-          Probable Topics

o    Chose one specific theme (forgery, fakes or copies, not all of them)

o    What is our message?

§   being able to tell a fake as well as a curator/how can you tell a fake?

§  Reasonings behind fakes

§  What are our tolerance of fakes?

§  The intention of our presentation of the object

-          Probable objects to use

o    Army objects – which are real or which isn’t, when can we tell when one is old, the other is distressed

o    Antique objects found in local antique stores

-          Places to take inspirations from

o    British Museum

§  They have recently done three exhibitions on the topic of fakes and forgeries

• Indicates the severity and importance of this topic
• Museums around the world are starting to admit to housing some fake objects and displaying them as real

o    How large of a collection is fake within a museum, how far can we go in terms of knowing our collection? How much can we accept (1960-70, can be traced to the dealers and know that its fake for sure)

-          Handouts

o    a handout interact with the visitor detailing how you are to find out which is fake

-          Displays

o    Super glue real/fake coins on the outside of the cabinet casing to allow visitors to feel and guess which is a fake/real coin. Allow visitors to write down answer, and the real answer will be revealed at the end of the week.

o    Block out sides to make it not part of the exhibition

o    To have things printed

o    To have window treatment

o    Focusing on a single word in our casing?

-          Most probably working title

o    “When is it okay to fake it?”

3. Money Matter

-          People are willing to give out £5 each x 8 = £40 for any of displays, pens and such

4. Conclusion from this meeting

-          We know have 3 working topics, we must choose one

-          We still need to keep searching

5. For next week

-          For next week:

o    Think of an object to display

o    To find an actual antique piece to use as a display

o    If this does not work, then we are go back to original topic

o    For plan B, create a list of items we can use as comparison

o    Bringing the ‘real’ object to the museum curator to have it checkout

6. Date of next meeting

-          The date of the next meeting will be on October 11^th, 11:00am.

7. Adjournment

Jennifer made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 pm.

Minutes of the 3^rd Meeting of Group 1 AGMS 61061 course
October 11^th 2010, 11AM Study Room 8 JRUL

Present:

Ms. Jennifer Chow

Mr. Shahram Agha-Kasiri

Ms. Kristin Hussey

Ms. Meng Zou

Ms. Elizabeth Cooper

Ms. Tania Moore

Ms. Kirstin ‘Stena’ James (Secretary/Chair)

Ms. Sally Thelwell
The meeting was called to order at 11:11am

1. Things discussed during meeting

-We changed from working title of “When is it okay to fake it?” to “DO YOU FAKE IT”

-We drafted designs for the cabinet.

-We talked about the kinds of materials we would need to make the design ideas work, and how much it would cost.

2. Money Matter

-          There will be some provision from the AGMS program, we just don’t know what amount that is as yet.

3. Conclusion from this meeting

We are going to primarily look at the subject of fashion knock-offs, and the social problems, crime, and violence that the money from knock-offs (and their production) fosters.

4. For next week

-Everyone is going to bring research resources, articles and define the aspects of the project that they are most interested in working on.

-At some point, someone will need to go shopping—who wants to be on the shopping committee?

6. Date of next meeting

-          The date of the next meeting will be on October 18^th, 4:00pm.

-           Stena arranged for the study room for this week, Meng is going to arrange for a study room for our next meeting.

7. Adjournment

Shahram made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12pm.

Minutes of the 4th Meeting of Group 1 AGMS 61061 course
October 18^th 2010, 4pm at study room 14

Present:

Ms. Jennifer Chow (Secretary/Chair)

Mr. Shahram Agha-Kasiri

Ms. Kristin Hussey

Ms. Meng Zou

Ms. Elizabeth Cooper

Ms. Tania Moore

Ms. Kirstin ‘Stena’ James

Ms. Sally Thelwell

The meeting was called to order at 4:28pm

1. Group Discussion

2. Things discussed during meeting

Display: blocking out lights from the sides and back

Review of what we have now:

Research that we can link back

LV – fake perfumes,

Cigarettes

Fake items link with 1993 bomb attack

IRA

Digital

A blog dyfiproject.wordpress.com and a youtube  (linked to ‘DYFI Project’ blog)

*New shop opening idea, to be opening soon

What we need to start thinking about getting:

Text print, signage, text panels

Sheets of text?

Things we need to get

Meeting up on Thursday

11:00am

Pizza express

Things we will have:

Two handbags

1 wallet

DVD’s

Jewellery

(1 ‘apple’ plug)

Maximum have about 5 objects

What we believe:

Purchasing luxury fakes financing crime in the UK

To make the image more prominent:

Pictures of sweat shops, and what you’re funding with the fake goods

What we need to do:

Need to start on back text panel

3. Conclusion from this meeting

-       Need to start working on the panels

4. For next week

-       For next week:

o      Start on text panels

o      backing

5. Date of next meeting

-       The date of the next meeting will be on October 25^th, 10:00am.

6. Adjournment

Jennifer made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm.

Minutes of the 5^th Meeting of Group 1 AGMS 61061 course
October 25^th 2010, 10am study room 14

Present:

Ms. Jennifer Chow (Secretary/Chair)

Mr. Shahram Agha-Kasiri

Ms. Kristin Hussey

Ms. Meng Zou

Ms. Elizabeth Cooper

Ms. Tania Moore

Ms. Kirstin ‘Stena’ James

Ms. Sally Thelwell
The meeting was called to order at 9:47am

1. Group Discussion

2. Things discussed during meeting

• Text panels

o  Where they were bought, how much they cost and the human cost

o  Linked to, has a correlation with

o  We won’t be able to draw a solid proof

o  These stories are illustrative

o  Possible two smaller blurbs on the back for more ‘in focus’ type of text where we will have stories

o  Quotes on the stars – even single words

o  Pictures will be with the text panel

o  Spider diagram

o  Cockle-picker, world trade center – these two stories on the wall

• Informal writing
• Back panel – more authoritative

• Layout

o  Our three pieces at the bottom

o  Back text panel and ‘in focus’ stories on the back

o  More quotes around

• Burberry print / ECCO paper for the backing

• Number of objects

o  2 watches (Rolex, Cartier)

o  2 bags (Chloe, LV)

o  1 wallet (LV)

o  1 belt (Gucci)

o  1 earring (Vivienne Westwood)

o  1 stack of DVDs

• So how do they fund terrorism?

o  The articles are all very vague

o  We will need to create something

o  The direct links

• Will still chip in £5 = £40 in total

• A poll?

• We’re putting up all the things the Friday before

Shiram & Tania: Fabric, material for the back panel, signage, design

Elizabth: Morecambe, DVDs

Meng/Stena: The Group Report and Budget Report

Kristen: Accessories (belt, Handbag x 2 and wallet)

Sally: Jewellery (Watches x 2, earrings)

Jennifer/Stena: World Trade Center/Sweatshops

3. Conclusion from this meeting

We all have our own sections to complete

4. For next week

To get started on each of our assigned sections

5. Date of next meeting

The date of the next meeting will be November 1^st, 11:00am.

6. Adjournment

Jennifer made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00am. Next meeting: 11am

Minutes of the 6^th Meeting of Group 1 AGMS 61061 course
November 1^st 2010, 10am at study room 12

Present:

Mr. Shahram Agha-Kasiri

Ms. Jennifer Chow (Secretary/Chair)

Ms. Elizabeth Cooper

Ms. Kirstin ‘Stena’ James

Ms. Tania Moore

Ms. Sally Thelwell

Ms. Meng Zou

Regrets:

Ms. Kristin Hussey

The meeting was called to order at 10:15am

1. Things discussed during meeting

Lizzy panel  – done

Main panel done

Proposal done

Backing done

Stands done

Get fish wires

Adhesive or Velcro to hang up fabric

Things to be done:

Jewellery Panel

1993 Bombing

Lizzy = Human Prize

Printing of text panels

Printing of ‘Star labels’

2. Date of next meeting

Monday 11am

3. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 11:40am

Text Draft from Kristin!

How much does your fake really cost?

In 2006, one in twenty adults in the UK purchased a fake luxury good.* While owning contraband might have once been looked down upon, studies have shown that people are increasingly proud of their purchases and consider the quality of fake good ‘on par’ with their designer counterparts.* But what the vendor on the street corner isn’t telling you is what the money you spend on your Louis Vuitton bag is for. Money from the sales of fake luxury good have been linked to child labour, human trafficking and even terrorism.

“Profits from counterfeiting are one of the three main sources of income supporting international terrorism.”
-Magnus Ranstrop, Universtiy of St. Andrews

Recently authorities across the E.U. have been cracking down on contraband items brought into the country from abroad and their resale at home. According to the European Commission on Taxation and Customs Union, in 2007 alone over 2 million illegal articles were intercepted in the UK.

According to a recent pole, only 59% percent of Brits who own a fake would stop buying these items if they knew they were made in sweatshops.*

“People need to think about where their money is going and the often appalling conditions in which these items are produced.”
-Stuart Lockyear, director of intellectual property at Burberry

What do you think? Would links to crime make you reconsider buying a fake luxury good in the future?

Are these items really worth the price?

*Statistics provided by Ledbury Research’s 2007 report titled “Counterfeiting Luxury: Exposing the Myths”

~Kristin Hussey, Email DYFI Project Text-Draft, 21 October 2010

Week Four Draft Meeting Minutes from 18 October

Minutes of the 4^th Meeting of Group 1 AGMS 61061 course
October 18^th 2010, 4PM Study Room 8 JRUL

Present:

Ms. Jennifer Chow

Mr. Shahram Agha-Kasiri

Ms. Kristin Hussey

Ms. Meng Zou

Ms. Elizabeth Cooper

Ms. Tania Moore

Ms. Kirstin ‘Stena’ James

Ms. Sally Thelwell
The meeting was called to order at 4:02

1. Group Discussion

-          Article discussed: Coxall, H.  (2006) ‘Open minds: Inclusive practice’, Museum Philosophy for the 21^st century, Altamira Press/ University of Nebraska

-          Concluding point: In general, what we think we communicate as museum text writers, and what we actually communicate as museum text writers are two different things. Inclusivity is easier aspired to than accomplished, but increasing awareness of the cultural and social dimensions of meaning is critical for good text. Aiming for a conversational tone is important. It was a thought-provoking article.

2. Things discussed during meeting

-We changed from working title of “When is it okay to fake it?” to “DO YOU FAKE IT”

3. Money Matter

-          25 POUNDS from AGMS!!! We should be able to cover expenses well now . . .

4. Conclusion from this meeting

We are going to primarily look at the subject of fashion knock-offs, and the social problems, crime, and violence that the money from knock-offs (and their production) fosters.

5. For next week

-Everyone is going to bring research resources, articles and define the aspects of the project that they are most interested in working on.

6. Date of next meeting

-          The date of the next meeting will be on October 25^th, 10AM, TBA but probably a room in JRUL if possible.

-           Meng & Stena are going to arrange for a study room for our next meeting.

-There will be a shopping excursion by the accessions committee in the Northern Quarter on Thursday for anyone that can/would like to go.

7. Adjournment

Shahram made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5pm.