Ad
related to: meret oppenheim objectRead Customer Reviews & Find Best Sellers. Free, Easy Returns On Millions Of Items. Get Deals and Low Prices On meret oppenheim On Amazon
Search results
Meret Oppenheim. Object. Paris, 1936. Fur-covered cup, saucer, and spoon. Cup 4 3/8" (10.9 cm) in diameter; saucer 9 3/8" (23.7 cm) in diameter; spoon 8" (20.2 cm) long, overall height 2 7/8" (7.3 cm). Purchase. 130.1946.a-c. © 2024 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / Pro Litteris, Zurich.
- A Luncheon with Fur
- What Is a Surrealist Object?
- Visceral Responses
- Presentation Problems
- The Meaning of Others
- Dangerous Success
The story behind the creation of Object, an ordinary cup, spoon, and saucer wrapped evocatively in gazelle fur, has been told so many times its importance in modernist history transcends the fact it might be apocryphal (of dubious authenticity). The twenty-two year old Basel-born artist, Meret Oppenheim, had been in Paris for four years when, one d...
Oppenheim’s Object was created at a moment when sculpted objects and assemblages had become prominent features of Surrealist art practice. In 1937, British art critic Herbert Read emphasized that all Surrealist objects were representative of an idea and Salvador Dalí described some of them as “objects with symbolic function.” In other words, how mi...
What, then, do we make of this set of be-furred tableware? Interpretations vary wildly. The art historian Whitney Chadwick has described it as linked to the Surrealist’s love of alchemical transformation by turning cool, smooth ceramic and metal into something warm and bristley, while many scholars have noted the fetishistic qualities of the fur-lined set—as the fur imbues these functional, hand-held objects with sexual connotations.
In a 1936 issue of the New Yorker Magazine, it was reported that a woman fainted “right in front of the fur-bearing cup and saucer [while it was on exhibit at MoMA]. “She left no name with the attendants who revived her - only a vague feeling of apprehension.”* Such visceral reactions to Oppenheim’s sculpture come closest, perhaps, to what were likely the artist’s aspirations. In an interview later in life, Oppenheim described her creations as “not an illustration of an idea, but the thing itself.”
In spite of our individual response, the interpretation of Object has been complicated by the ways it was assigned meaning by others. When Object was finished, Oppenheim submitted it to Breton for an exhibition of Surrealist objects at the Charles Ratton Gallery in Paris in 1936. However, while Oppenheim preferred a non-descriptive title, Breton to...
Certainly we cannot assume that the spark of the idea for this piece and the piece itself are necessarily related, but the way meanings have been ascribed to Oppenheim’s pieces by others has plagued many of her works.
Art historian Edward Powers has noted that when Oppenheim sent her Surrealist object Das Paar to a photographer before submitting it for exhibition, the photographer took the liberty of tying up the laces before photographing it. When Breton saw the photo with tied laces, he dubbed this object à délacer which in French means to untie, typically either shoes or a corset. The title and laced shoes together suggest the potential act of undressing and a fascination with exposing the female body. However, when Oppenheim later described Das Paar (with the laces untied), she stated it was an “odd unisexual pair: two shoes, unobserved at night, doing ‘forbidden’ things.” She expressly assigned no gender, and suggests the “forbidden” acts already taking place between anthropomorphized shoes. She takes a more literal approach, the shoes as expressive things in themselves, rather than symbolically resonant of something else.
Yet, the early acclaim for the fur-covered Object had a negative effect on Oppenheim’s early career. When it was purchased by The Museum of Modern Art and featured in their influential 1936-37 exhibition "Fantastic Art, Dada, and Surrealism" visitors declared it the “quintessential” Surrealist object. And that is how it has been seen ever since. But for Oppenheim, the prestige and focus on this one object proved too much, and she spent more than a decade out of the artistic limelight, destroying much of the work she produced during that period. It was only later when she re-emerged, and began publicly showing new paintings and objects with renewed vigor and confidence, that she began reclaiming some of the intent of her work. When she was given an award for her work by the City of Basel, she touched upon this in her acceptance speech: “I think it is the duty of a woman to lead a life that expresses her disbelief in the validity of the taboos that have been imposed upon her kind for thousands of years. Nobody will give you freedom; you have to take it.”
*Nelson Landsdale and St. Clair McKelway, Talk of the Town, “Critical Note,” The New Yorker, December 26, 1936, p. 7.
Object ("The Luncheon in Fur"), known in English as Fur Breakfast or Breakfast in Fur, is a 1936 sculpture by the surrealist Méret Oppenheim, consisting of a fur -covered teacup, saucer and spoon. The work, which originated in a conversation in a Paris cafe, is the most frequently-cited example of sculpture in the surrealist movement.
- Assemblage Sculpture
People also ask
What is a Meret Oppenheim object?
What does Meret Oppenheim represent?
What is object by Meret Oppenheim about?
How did Meret Oppenheim transform everyday objects into art?
Dec 6, 2023 · This amusing story belies the importance of Object and the critical acclaim and public fascination that has elevated it to point where it has become the definitive surrealist object…ultimately to Oppenheim’s dismay.
Feb 9, 2016 · February 9, 20163:03 PM ET. By. Nina Martyris. Enlarge this image. Object (or Luncheon in Fur ), by Meret Oppenheim. In 1936, Oppenheim wrapped a teacup, saucer and spoon in fur. In the...
Meret Oppenheim, a surrealist artist, created a famous fur-covered cup, saucer, and spoon. This unusual artwork, sparked by a conversation with Picasso, challenges our sense of normalcy by combining domestic objects with wild elements.
- 3 min
- Smarthistory
