Getting to the point

I've pulled these two questions from the abstract. I think these can form the context for the Paper in Boston - me and Kate G can talk about how we approach these ideas - I would say something about informing the system I'm working within shaping it's function through meaning adding to the world of objects and questioning meaning by making an object which challenges function within a system or value structure- which is the English breakfast piece - I'm really clear on how all this fits in - Kate G could do something perhaps around ideas of a collection (Rather than just collecting) Kate P and Lou can you think of your slant/ approach on this and we could all perhaps look for points of synergy or where collaberation has helped us to see things from a new perspective - perhaps this idea of creative triangulation has some milage in it. Also I like Kims idea that because an object is there it must have a provenance it asserts itself through it's thingness (Is this Phenomology) "This is this this isn't something else" So an object never really looses it's provenance because this always sits external to it - it's the human part of the equation the thing which allows us to connect to the past and the future - do we need to have somesort of material culture studies input I think it's here we may look a bit thick - I can talk to my archeologist friends - I know a flint expert working at stonehenge and he may be able to give an interesting slant as he is a real focussed specialist or perhaps we just need to focuss in on ethnography and not worry about material culture.

How do objects move in meaning, or move from function to meaning?Does it matter if an object has no provenance?What happens if there is a narrative and no object (the case of the disappearing object)Are objects merely taking their menaing from their form and function or do they acquire new identities as new resonsances and echoes take hold of them?