ROSE BARTELS Questioning the Collection I have chosen to focus on a set of spoons from the Korean Goryeo Dynasty because I thought that the objects had an interesting relationship between function and aesthetic. There is an argument to say that these spoons have been designed for capital, they are simply a symbol of status and wealth. However I feel this is a very cynical approach to take and they are a lovely example of what design is at its core. When I look at the spoons I feel joy, I want to hold them, to test their weight. I want to use them and have the sensory experience of eating with them. I found myself imagining the hands of the person who made them, the tools and processes they used to shape the metal. I was drawn to the spoons because they give value to an object we see and use everyday. My understanding of a spoon today is tied up with mundanity and familiarity. We are used to using spoons which have been mass-produced and are often disposable. If we unpack the objects being displayed we see the huge amount of care that has gone into their creation. They have all been hand formed, giving them a lovely tactility- I found myself wanting to feel the smoothness of the bowl and the curve of the handle. Each spoon is unique, they have been designed to work coherently as a set but each has its own individuality. Another layer to this care they have been given is the fact that they have been preserved so well for over a thousand years. They have little signs of wear and still look like they could be used today, perhaps this suggests that these objects were an integral part of society at that time- that they were seen as highly valuable and people thought they would be valuable for years to come. The information card says that “Spoons were often placed in burials...” supporting my theory of design over capital, rather than design as capital. Although we know that the spoons had a lot of monetary value, and this is a reason why they were found in burials, we also understand that they were important for other reasons. They were considered special and important enough to be buried, implying that people who used them found they had a spiritual or magical quality. They may have been buried with the wealthy as a status symbol or they may have been considered necessary for the afterlife. Either way I think it is quite unusual today to find an object which is used everyday and is given this level of value. We may have things like jewellery which we wear everyday, and are valuable, but an object with function and value is rare. I think our modern equivalent may be mobile phones. We use them everyday, they are valuable in terms of monetary value and usefulness, and have been designed to appeal aesthetically. Maybe in years to come archaeologists will find mobiles buried with us in graves. Jack Walker Heppell ‘Bust of a black boy’ 1705-10 The V&A’s main collections tell s.

1. ROSE BARTELS
Questioning the Collection
I have chosen to focus on a set of spoons from the Korean
Goryeo Dynasty because I thought that the objects had an
interesting relationship between function and aesthetic. There is
an argument to say that these spoons have been
designed for capital, they are simply a symbol of status and
wealth. However I feel this is a very cynical approach to
take and they are a lovely example of what design is at its core.
When I look at the spoons I feel joy, I want to hold
them, to test their weight. I want to use them and have the
sensory experience of eating with them. I found myself
imagining the hands of the person who made them, the tools and
processes they used to shape the metal.
I was drawn to the spoons because they give value
to an object we see and use everyday. My
understanding of a spoon today is tied up with
mundanity and familiarity. We are used to using
spoons which have been mass-produced and are
often disposable.
If we unpack the objects being displayed we see the

2. huge amount of care that has gone into their
creation. They have all been hand formed, giving
them a lovely tactility- I found myself wanting to feel
the smoothness of the bowl and the curve of the
handle. Each spoon is unique, they have been
designed to work coherently as a set but each has
its own individuality. Another layer to this care they
have been given is the fact that they have been
preserved so well for over a thousand years.
They have little signs of wear and still look like they could be
used today, perhaps this suggests that these objects
were an integral part of society at that time- that they were seen
as highly valuable and people thought they would be
valuable for years to come.
The information card says that “Spoons were often placed in
burials...” supporting my theory of design over capital,
rather than design as capital. Although we know that the spoons
had a lot of monetary value, and this is a reason
why they were found in burials, we also understand that they
were important for other reasons. They were
considered special and important enough to be buried, implying
that people who used them found they had a
spiritual or magical quality.
They may have been buried with the wealthy as a status symbol
or they may have been considered necessary for
the afterlife.
Either way I think it is quite unusual today to find an object
which is used everyday and is given this level of value. We
may have things like jewellery which we wear everyday, and are
valuable, but an object with function and value is rare. I

3. think our modern equivalent may be mobile phones. We use
them everyday, they are valuable in terms of monetary
value and usefulness, and have been designed to appeal
aesthetically. Maybe in years to come archaeologists will find
mobiles buried with us in graves.
Jack Walker Heppell
‘Bust of a black boy’ 1705-10
The V&A’s main collections tell stories of Eurocentrism. But
what does Eurocentric
mean? Hannah Franzki, of Bielefeld University, defines it to be
a world-view which, implicitly or explicitly, posits European
history and values as
“normal” and superior to others’.
Though the museum’s narrative may not support these ideas of
superiority, the V&A
displays that what it means to be part of Europe’s history is
synonymous with being
white.
The Caucasian noses
that look like mine,
guide me through the
cast courts and
account (white)
people from all
financial and social
backgrounds. A bust

4. or even full sculpture,
historically reserved
for gods and royalty
share the same
spaces as statesmen,
novelists and even
women.
Bust of a black boy isn’t in any collection at the V&A,
but rather the archives. Found through searching on an
information screen, no staff could point me in its
direction. Online, the museum exploring the ambiguity
and curiosity surrounding the bust:
Why, when busts in Europe were usually
reserved for the white and wealthy, was a black
child depicted? [...] at least ten versions are
known to exist [...] a sign of fashion and status
to 'employ' a young black page.
The fact of no 'condescension or caricature' suggests
that the sculpture isn't designed as a display of racism.
The white man that hangs around the boy's neck in the
form of a medallion points us to the transatlantic slave
trade and how populations of African descent arrived
into Europe. But the article also talks about how black
European communities have existed for centuries,
NOSES OF THE SCULPTURES IN THE V&A CAST COURTS
BUST OF A BLACK BOY, ATTRIBUTED
TO JOANNES CLAUDIUS DE COCK

5. Jack Walker Heppell
something I personally wasn't aware of until reading. Why
doesn't the V&A's main
collection reflect this?
Bust of a black boy has such an interesting context of the
commodity of black culture,
both materially and socially. Why are sculptures of unknown
figures with brief emotive
descriptions instead taking its place? The V&A, as such a
popular establishment, has a
responsibility to tell the complex narratives that teach us the
real history of our
continent.
No matter how unconscious, the museum's "othering" of non-
white ethnicities keeps
alive a narrative that is reflected in the design of countless
institutions. Obviously, the
idea is to "design for all" but whoever is in charge's idea of
"all" is wrong, or at least
outmoded. The V&A is a microcosm of this.
Formative Assessment 2
Questioning the Collection
EXAMINE HOW THE V&A MUSEUM

6. CONSTRUCTS A PARTICULAR HISTORY OR A
PARTICULAR THEORY OF DESIGN THROUGH
ANALYSING ONE OBJECT FROM COLLECTION
EXAMINE HOW THE V&A MUSEUM
CONSTRUCTS A PARTICULAR HISTORY OR
A PARTICULAR THEORY OF
DESIGN THROUGH
ANALYSING ONE OBJECT FROM COLLECTION
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
TASK 1 Visit the V&A Museum
TASK 2 Choose an exhibition or gallery display.
TASK 3 Spend 30 minutes walking around the chosen
gallery space.
TASK 4 Choose one object.
TASK 5 Spend 30 minutes with the object, considering the
following questions.

7. Think about the artifact within multiple contexts – social,
cultural,
economic, political and technological:
• When was it made?
• What processes were involved in its manufacture?
• What cultural meanings has the object accrued throughout
its history?
• What kinds of people use the thing?
• How was it sold and advertised?
• Where was it manufactured?
• Did it change market dynamics?
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
• What is the Museum saying about design as a discipline?
• What is the Museum saying about itself as an institution?
• How is the Museum justifying its selection?
• What is the artifact placed next to?
• What information is given about the artifact?

8. • Is the historical context of the artifact explained?
• To what extent does the ‘designer/craftsperson/activist’ play a
role in the explanation of the artifact?
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Write a 500 word piece of text answering (some of) these
questions.
Please remember:
• Your analysis needs to critique the Museum’s ‘voice’.
• Your history needs to represent your selections
social / cultural / economic / political / technological meaning.
Upload pdf: To GDrive (Link to be sent out via email)
Deadline: 9am, Monday 2 March 2020