1529, from M.E. gaud "deception, trick," also "ornamental bead, rosary" (c.1300) (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=g&p=2)
i should think that investigating the deceptive nature of the gaudy would prove interesting. it is meant to be immediately recognizable as something which is deceptive, and therefore undesirable and unattractive, but if its deception is recognized, how can it be said to be deceptive?
In Marlowe's 'Dr. Faustus', the fact that the objects used to tempt Faustus are both deceptive (insofar as they 'succeed'), and empty (insofar as they're purely ornamental, so doubly deceptive), is one of the core dramatic ironies of the piece.
In related matters, the above glossing of ornamental bead/rosary tells you a great deal about competing religious discourses regarding the efficacy of particular rituals as encapsulated in the object.
I see a bit more potential for divergent paths in the multiple meanings of tacky as in tasteless as well as slightly sticky. Gaudy seems somewhat limited to temporal fashion, but it could be interesting to look at the relationship between the coming in and out of fashion of things that are at other times called gaudy in correlation the etymological coming in and out of fashion of using the word gaudy.
In browsing about for some sources relating to that, I came across this seemingly rich article with plenty of post-colonialism, post-modernism, and references to some of MCM's mostfavoritest theorists (including some Freud.) http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n10/eagl01_.html
Commodities, fetishes, souvenirs, relics, rubbish. What theories help us think about things? In this course we will read Victorian travelers on West African "fetish," Michael Taussig on his imagined cocaine museum, Susan Stewart on longing and souvenirs, Freud on shiny noses, Marx on tables, Annette Weiner on the similarities between gift and commodity exchange, Mary Douglas on dirt, D.W. Winnicott on string, and Arjun Appadurai on the idea of the social lives of things. The singularization of things, the ways in which history and memory are stored in real and imagined objects, the commodification of the human body, the animation of the inanimate, utopian recycling, gleaning, found objects as art and craft: we will consider a broad range of theoretical issues in our readings and in projects that put them to quirky use.
3 comments:
1529, from M.E. gaud "deception, trick," also "ornamental bead, rosary" (c.1300) (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=g&p=2)
i should think that investigating the deceptive nature of the gaudy would prove interesting. it is meant to be immediately recognizable as something which is deceptive, and therefore undesirable and unattractive, but if its deception is recognized, how can it be said to be deceptive?
-Jonathan
Extending Jonathan's thought, above:
In Marlowe's 'Dr. Faustus', the fact that the objects used to tempt Faustus are both deceptive (insofar as they 'succeed'), and empty (insofar as they're purely ornamental, so doubly deceptive), is one of the core dramatic ironies of the piece.
In related matters, the above glossing of ornamental bead/rosary tells you a great deal about competing religious discourses regarding the efficacy of particular rituals as encapsulated in the object.
--Ryan
I see a bit more potential for divergent paths in the multiple meanings of tacky as in tasteless as well as slightly sticky. Gaudy seems somewhat limited to temporal fashion, but it could be interesting to look at the relationship between the coming in and out of fashion of things that are at other times called gaudy in correlation the etymological coming in and out of fashion of using the word gaudy.
In browsing about for some sources relating to that, I came across this seemingly rich article with plenty of post-colonialism, post-modernism, and references to some of MCM's mostfavoritest theorists (including some Freud.)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n10/eagl01_.html
-Crow Jonah Norlander
Post a Comment